COUNCIL PACKET

Regular Council Meeting Agenda November 9, 2020 - 7:30 p.m. This meeting will be held remotely via WebEx. Public participation information is as follows: Phone: 1-408-418-9388 Link: https://cityofdoverde.webex.com/cityofdoverde/onstage/g.php?MTID=edce68b432775e8 09ae52cdd695a857d2 Event number: 173 137 2488 Event password: Dover (if needed) If you are new to WebEx get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. Invocation by Mayor Christiansen Pledge of Allegiance Led by Councilman Sudler Adoption of Agenda * Consent Agenda Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non-controversial shall be marked with an asterisk (*) and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of Council so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered a separate item. * 1. Adoption of Minutes - Regular Council Meeting of October 26, 2020 2. Public Hearing/Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council meeting of September 28, 2020. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government." A. Ordinance #2020-13 Amending Appendix B - Zoning, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 20B - Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone - Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center (IPM3); Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 21 - Public Utility Infrastructure and a new Section 23 - Wireless Communications Facilities; Article 12 - Definitions; Chapter 98 - Streets, Sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Other Public Places; and Appendix F - Fees and Fines (Wireless Communications)

Council Agenda - November 9, 2020 Page 2 * 3. Council Committee of the Whole Report - October 27, 2020 A. Actionable Items - Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee (1) Budget Amendment - Community Policing Unit (Committee recommendation: Approval of the proposed Budget Amendments totaling $177,900 for Fiscal Year 2021) (2) Project Management Services - Enterprise Resources Planning System (ERP) (Committee recommendation: Authorization for the Controller/Treasurer to enter into a contract with BerryDunn for the purpose of Project Management with the Enterprise Resource Planning system implementation for the remaining phases of this project and to amend the Electric Improvement and Extension Fund budget for the requested amount as projected each fiscal year) B. Actionable Items - Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee (1) Reconsideration - Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects (Committee recommendation: Approval of the Revised 2020 Prioritization of the City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects) * 4. Monthly Reports - September 2020 A. City Assessor’s Report B. City Council’s Community Enhancement Fund Report C. City Manager’s Report D. City Planner’s Report E. Controller/Treasurer’s Budget Report F. Police Chief’s Report * 5. Quarterly Review - Capital Investment Plan (CIP) (July, August, and September) * 6. Appointment Recommended by Mayor Christiansen - Public Advisory Committee of the Dover/Kent County MPO - Dr. Shanita A. Powell (to fill the expired term of Dr. Carlton L. Cannon, Jr. - term to expire July 1, 2022) 7. Update on Code Enforcement and Crime Mitigation - Reed and New Streets 8. Final Reading - Proposed Ordinance #2020-14 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 26, 2020. The ordinance is available at the entrance of the Council Chambers and on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government." A. Ordinance #2020-14 Project Carry-Forward Budget Balances/Proposed Budget Amendments 9. City Manager’s Announcements 10. Council Members’ Announcements 11. Adjournment

Council Agenda - November 9, 2020 Page 3 /tm S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Agendas\2020\11-09-2020 COUNCIL.wpd Executive Session Pursuant to: 29 Del. C. §10004(b)(2) - Preliminary discussions on site acquisitions for any publicly funded capital improvements, or sales or leases of real property; 29 Del. C. §10004(b)(4) - Strategy sessions, including those involving legal advice or opinion from an attorney-at-law, with respect to collective bargaining or pending or potential litigation, but only when an open meeting would have an adverse effect on the bargaining or litigation position of the public body; 29 Del. C. §10004(b)(6) - Discussion of the content of documents, excluded from the definition of "public record" in §10002 of this title where such discussion may disclose the contents of such documents; 29 Del. C. §10004(b)(9) - Personnel matters in which the names, competency and abilities of individual employees are discussed, unless the employee requests that such a meeting be open THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The Regular City Council Meeting was held by video conference on October 26, 2020 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Hare presiding. Council members present via video or telephone were Mr. Anderson (arrived at 7:32 p.m.), Mr. Sudler, Mr. Neil, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Cole, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Lindell. Staff members present via video or telephone were Police Chief Johnson, Ms. Peddicord, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Hugg, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell. Mayor Christiansen was also present. The invocation was given by Mayor Christiansen, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 2020 The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 12, 2020 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Rocha and bore the written approval of Mayor Christiansen. PROCLAMATION - GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) DAY AND GEOGRAPHY AWARENESS WEEK The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record: WHEREAS, fascination with the earth's geography inspired the early explorers of our country to learn and record information about the surface of the land and its people, environments, resources, political boundaries, and characteristics and today remains a fundamental part of our national heritage; and WHEREAS, geographic information has many useful applications for our municipal government and is a valuable resource used in the analysis of infrastructure, emergency services, economic development, and long-range planning. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology provides an efficient means of managing geographic information and providing data that allows for effective decision making and improved delivery of services to the residents of the City of Dover and our surrounding area; and WHEREAS, globally geographers have informed public policy, responded to Covid 19 developing dashboards and databases, mapped and measured severe climate events to better grasp what is happening, where and why; and WHEREAS, the City of Dover's GIS Division plays a vital role in the continued growth of the City and has been nationally recognized for its outstanding efforts in the advancement of GIS and its foresight in creating programs that can be used to better manage services in the City.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE, do hereby proclaim November 18, 2020 as GIS Day, and November 15 - 21, 2020 as GEOGRAPHY AWARENESS WEEK in the City of Dover and urge all residents to participate in this special observance. On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Christiansen presented the proclamation to Mr. Mark Nowak, City of Dover GIS Manager. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - OCTOBER 13, 2020 The Council Committee of the Whole was held by video conference on October 13, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Hare presiding. Council members present via video or telephone were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sudler (arrived at 6:03 p.m.), Mr. Neil, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Cole, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Lindell (arrived at 6:26 p.m.). Civilian members present via video or telephone for their Committee meetings were Mr. Caldwell and Col. Dix (Ret.) (Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement), Mr. Shevock (departed at 8:16 p.m.) and Mr. Contant (Legislative, Finance, and Enhancement). PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met with Chairman Anderson presiding. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Update on Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) (Captain Brooks of the Delaware Army National Guard) Captain James Brooks, Delaware Army National Guard, provided an update on Innovative Readiness Training (IRT). Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Harline stated that they have been planning for this project to move forward and that they had the money budgeted years ago to lay the fields. Mr. Robin Eaton, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that two fields would be added as a result of the project. Responding to Committee members' questions, Capt. Brooks provided the following information: • It would take 24 hours to turn the eyeglasses around and, at the very start, up to 48 hours for NOSTRA (Naval Ophthalmic Support and Training Activity) to take the prescriptions, manufacture the glasses, and get them back to them.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 3 • Once the glasses are delivered to the care site, they would contact the person to have them come in for the glasses. • They probably would not have a component where citizens could turn in old glasses for recycling because they manufacture glasses to specific sizes. • Regarding medical services, they were going to offer an annual physical and a chance to speak to a doctor. • They would not be providing any services that would create a blood product or more of a paper trail for them to have to follow up on. • Capt. Brooks would need to check to see if they would be doing COVID testing. If the tests were something that require a 24-hour or 48-hour turnaround time, as of right now, they are not set up to do that and they do not have the supplies in the supply line. If that was something that could be added, that would be a question back to the providers that would have more input in their services. • If there was a vaccine for COVID, he would hope that they would be able to provide that, but he was unsure. They have not been able to provide vaccines for things like zika, malaria, or even the common flu. • All three sites made available to them are from the Capital School District. Towne Point and South Dover Elementary are still going to be primary points of care. They have an unknown element to the mission at this point and that is where the third care site is going to be. The third care site was originally slated for Booker T. Washington School, but the damage it received during the tornado has possibly prevented them from being able to utilize that site. • Their portion of this was to craft the military specific messaging that goes out to the community, how the community wants to market it is completely up to them. They will answer any public relations or affairs questions that come their way and they provide very specific messaging. Presentation - Wilmington Hope Commission and Bobby Wilson Ms. Rachel Notten, Vice President of Booted and Suited Construction Academy, presented information regarding their program. Ms. Notten stated that Booted and Suited Construction Academy was a professional academy with a sensitivity to the unique needs that citizens returning from prison have in finding and retaining quality employment. Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Anderson stated that the Wilmington Hope Commission and Booted and Suited were connected organizations. Ms. Notten noted that they would be working carefully and closely with the Wilmington Hope Commission. Mr. Slavin stated that he did not have a problem with the message that

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 4 was delivered, but that they had Wilmington Hope Commission on the agenda and that they should talk about the Wilmington Hope Commission. Ms. Notten stated that they were going to emulate the programs of the Wilmington Hope Commission. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Notten stated that they have a space in downtown Dover on Loockerman Street. She advised that they were looking at a national curriculum and that they have clients who were ready to take people in after they were trained. Mr. Anderson stated that the idea that was communicated to him was that this was essentially from the people of the Wilmington Hope Commission and that this was their local effort in Dover. Mr. Anderson stated that he was not aware that they actually spun off of the organization, which was not the original plan. It was originally going to work through the Wilmington Hope Commission. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Notten advised that Booted and Suited was in the process of completing their 501c3 and that the academy program would be six weeks. Ms. Notten stated that there would be a process of placement once individuals were trained. Responding to Mr. Cole, Ms. Notten stated that they were working on a budget for 2021 and would provide them with where the funds would go. Responding to Mr. Lindell regarding the purpose of this item, Mr. Anderson stated that the first time the Wilmington Hope Commission came, they presented their overall vision and wanted to see if there was an interest in Dover. He advised that this particular time, they arranged for someone to start in Dover with community organizations and this was progress of something happening in Dover. Mr. Anderson advised that if they came before the Committee again, he would want specifics. Responding to Mr. Lindell, Mr. Anderson stated that his vision would be talking about funding and that it may be other partnerships. He stated that other partnerships and resources are available that have less to do with funding. Mr. Taylor stated that he introduced a company called Intermold Corporation to the Hope Commission with Mr. Wilson. He noted that they are a company that makes plastic parts and that they were willing to train people to make parts and fix machinery and that they were willing to arrange transportation. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Notten stated that mental health would also be a part of the program. She advised that the City of Wilmington currently has programs for mental health, but it was semi-related to the workforce development. She stated that their current program just trains and employs participants and does not have the mental health aspect of their organization. Ms. Notten noted that they wanted to have the resources readily available if there was a need because it was highly important, especially for someone that had been incarcerated.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 5 Library Reopening Plan Mr. Matthew Harline, Assistant City Manager, and Mr. Brian Sylvester, Library Director, reviewed the Library Reopening Plan. (City Clerk’s Office Note: During the Regular City Council meeting of September 28, 2020, Council members approved the Committee’s recommendation to refer this item back to Staff until a clear vision of guidelines and protocols are in place.) Staff recommended a partial capacity reopening the week of November 1st. If the Committee is in agreement the Committee should provide direction on sanitation requirements and no contact entry, then direct staff to proceed. Mr. Neil expressed his concerns regarding book pickup and asked if orders could be placed at the checkout desk to reduce the number of patrons searching for books on the shelves and their amount of time in the library. Mr. Sylvester stated that he thought it could be done and that it would not be meaningfully different from the way they manage the holds desk. He noted that from a physical building security standpoint, they would want to block off the stacks if they were to do that kind of a model, so the patrons did not browse, because that would eliminate the point of doing it. Mr. Sylvester stated that it was something they could consider. Responding to Mr. Harline, Mr. Neil stated that it was different from the current holds process, which is providing books through curb service. If they were going to eliminate curb service, he was suggesting that pick up be offered at the desk. Mr. Sylvester stated that it would work exactly the same as it has in the past and it would be treated the same as a hold. Mr. Cole stated that his concern was that the protocols would be visible to Staff and patrons so that everybody was on the same page. He asked what the vision was for enforcement, which he felt was going to be the hardest part. Responding, Mr. Sylvester stated that they have seven different signs on display in the building and that each pertains to a different element of the protocols. There was also signage about hand washing, social distancing, and mask requirements and obtaining assistance if the patron was not able to wear a mask. Mr. Sylvester noted there might be slightly different signage in the children's room and they were looking at decals that go on the floor to mark off the six-foot distances. They thought they would do something a little more child-friendly in that area. He advised that one of the main things that they were treating as a prerequisite for opening was to have security back onsite for enforcement of the requirements. Mr. Sylvester advised that they talked internally about initially having a Staff person at the front entrance to ensure that masks were being worn, that people understood what rules needed to be followed, and possibly enforcing building occupancy limits. He noted that Sunstate Security would come back in if people had already entered the building and were not observing the protocols. Mr. Sylvester stated that they would give a warning first and make sure that they understood the rules for compliance.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 6 Mr. Harline stated they budgeted for slightly more than 66 hours per week for Sunstate Security for all 52 weeks of the year. He advised that it was possible to enable one guard to continue the sweeps of the floors, which was part of the contract, and if they had numerous violations they could ask Sunstate to have a second guard onsite. Mr. Harline stated that if they gave Sunstate Security enough lead time, it might be possible. He noted that eventually it would become trespassing if people did not follow the rules and the next step would be to call the Dover Police Department. Mr. Lindell stated that he wanted to make sure that if it was determined that the library should close due to unforeseen circumstances, it would be in coordination with Mr. Sylvester and the City Manager. Responding, Mr. Harline stated that he would have no hesitation closing the library if they saw that there was a real risk to public health. Mr. Hare asked how Staff would know what to sanitize if someone who tested positive for COVID-19 went into the library. He expressed concern with Staff being exposed. Responding, Mr. Sylvester stated that they had no way of knowing whether or not somebody was positive and asymptomatic. He advised that the Governor's guidelines indicated that they should clean surfaces that are touched by customers at least every two hours. Mr. Sylvester noted that they could do that and have the custodial service team have a day porter onsite, it was a little bit less than $2,000 a month. He advised that they have saved enough on the security detail that they could afford to do that for the foreseeable future. Mr. Harline noted that he was aware of situations where people have worked in offices together with someone who tested positive and, because mask restrictions were required and enforced strongly, the disease was not passed to other employees. He stated that there would be a re-evaluation on November 16th with a report back to Council on November 24th, at which time they would report any such situations. Mr. Harline stated that there was no 100% risk-free process to provide the service to the citizens of Dover, but they were going to be cleaning surfaces, working hard, and enforcing the mask requirement very stringently for exactly that reason. Responding to Mr. Hare, Mr. Sylvester stated that they had not planned to ask people to show their library cards. He noted that the library is a public facility, similar to a park, and they cannot really bar access on those grounds. Responding to Mr. Hare regarding security prior to the pandemic, Mr. Harline stated that they have had some guards that did not work out. He noted that they have removed many people from the library for sleeping and actually had the incident reports to show it, but they did not catch everyone. Mr. Harline advised that just before the pandemic hit, they were coordinating on reducing the number of warnings. He stated it was especially important now to make sure that the people in the library were there to use the library because of the increased of spreading the virus.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 7 Responding to Mr. Cole, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, stated that all department heads were reporting to Mrs. Kim Hawkins, Human Resources Director, to follow all Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Division of Public Health (DPH) guidelines. She advised that Staff does temperature checks every morning and asks the four or five COVID-related questions and they document it each day, which are submitted to Mrs. Kay Sass, Public Affairs and Emergency Management Coordinator. Mr. Cole stated that he was supportive of a limited opening and that if there were any miscommunications with any of the safety protocols, he was also in support of shutting the library down immediately for the safety of the Staff and anyone involved. Mr. Sudler stated that he was not confident that it was the right time. He stated that he knew Staff had done a tremendous job in trying to put together a plan of action to meet their satisfaction in regard to their concerns. Mr. Sudler stated that until they had some form of vaccine or close to it, he thought that the library was too much of a hotspot and that it could be the host of a major outbreak in downtown Dover because of the element of individuals that are attracted there. He advised that he would be voting against it. Mr. Neil asked how much it cost for the temperature checks. He stated if there were several units that would be made available to Staff to check people as they come in, he thought it would be a step in the right direction to opening the library. Responding, Mr. Harline stated that the original proposal was not to do the temperature checks because they did not want large groups of people at the door, but if it was a matter of not opening without the temperature check, then they would do them, noting that 99.5 degrees would be the cutoff point. He noted that if they are going to do temperature checks, they are going to have to carefully calibrate the instrument. Mr. Sylvester stated that they have two handheld, infrared, no contact, thermometers onsite that are being used for Staff as they are checked in the morning. Responding to Mr. Taylor regarding the 60% capacity, Mr. Sylvester stated that they had not discussed any means of prioritizing who would get access. Mr. Taylor stated that at 60% capacity they were going to have the homeless population loitering there. He noted that they have students who want to get in and asked who was going to be the one to tell the homeless population that they have to leave. Responding, Mr. Sylvester stated that in a situation where the building was at capacity at that level, it would be both security and Staff. He advised that if the security guard was available to do it, they would ask them to, if not, Staff would. Mr. Sylvester noted that they have an Acceptable Behavior Policy which prohibits loitering, so on those grounds, they could ask somebody to leave. Internally, they define loitering as not using the library for its intended purpose. Mr. Taylor stated that he firmly believed that someone needs to make sure there is a priority list.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 8 Responding to Mr. Taylor regarding the sanitation process, Mr. Sylvester stated that it was a quarantine process. He advised that, for library returns, they come in through the book drop and are placed onto either a cart or in a transit bin, then they are marked with the day they were packed. Staff wears masks and gloves and frequently sanitizes their hands. He stated that those items are left for at least 72 hours, sometimes longer depending on whether it was a transit from another library or returned from a member of the public. Once that time period has passed, then they open it up and check the books. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Harline stated that the police department had a deep clean after they had an exposure. He advised that there are companies that provide a special clean based on a square footage. Mr. Harline noted that if they knew a Staff member was sick or if they found through contact tracing that somebody was positive, they would hire that service. Mr. Taylor stated that the police department knew of the exposure but there would be no tracing with the transient population. Mrs. Mitchell advised that when they do the temperature checks at City Hall they write down who the person is, what their temperature was, and ask them to answer the questions. If they do not know who is coming and going and writing that down, they cannot do any contact tracing. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mr. Sylvester stated that they looked into other types of sanitation, specifically UV lighting. Mr. Sylvester advised that there are a couple of types of UV lighting that can be used, one is being used at Kent County Public Library. It is a sanitizer designed specifically for books and another one is an overhead sanitizer that can be installed. It is meant to be installed in a classroom but could also be an option for their meeting rooms. Mr. Sylvester stated that the problem with the one that goes into a room is that they would need to have the room empty of people for a full hour while it was being sanitized. He noted that it meant that they could use it in some of their spaces, but it would not be a viable option in all of their spaces unless they ran it overnight. Mr. Sylvester stated that it might not be a cost- effective cleaning measure if they were only doing a single deep clean with it. Mr. Sylvester stated that the primary objection he had to the book sanitizer was the volume of books that they would need to run through it. He stated that the one that the Kent County Public Library is using can only hold six titles at a time and it has to run for a minute. Mr. Sylvester noted the Kent County Public Library is a smaller library than the Dover Public Library and they have had to dedicate a staff person just to sanitizing items. The Dover Public Library would end up needing probably multiple units and end up having to dedicate multiple staff people to operate the units. Mr. Taylor asked if it would be beneficial if he introduced a company to the Committee and have them do a presentation about UV lighting. Responding, Mr. Harline stated they would certainly be willing to look at that option. He noted when it comes to the books, however, there was good evidence that a 72-hour wait was enough to eliminate the risk of transmission of corona viruses, particularly

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 9 COVID-19. Mr. Harline stated that they have filtration units in the HVAC system that meet the recommendations of the CDC and the cost to do the meeting rooms was not prohibitive. He noted that he would be interested to see if there was a solution for the general area, which is very large. Mr. Harline advised that 60% capacity for the library, not counting the multipurpose rooms, was 348 people. He stated that, counting in and out, they should be able to know when they are approaching 348 people in the library. Mr. Harline noted that the overwhelming opinion of Staff was that without special programming, they rarely have 348 patrons in the library at once. He stated that if it turns out that they were wrong, they will hold people at the door, and they can develop a protocol. Mr. Harline stated that the trouble with the protocol to remove people is, if Staff does not know when they came in, they are put in a situation of trying to evaluate how important somebody's purposes of being there and it would be difficult to do that just by looking at the age and the activity of the people. Mr. Taylor stated that the downtown merchants have been experiencing a huge recovery over the last few months and the merchants have noted that the City had taken on a whole new personality. Mr. Taylor stated that he was extremely reluctant to open the library, knowing that possibility exists. Mr. Cole stated that the library Staff and City of Dover Staff have, working with CDC and DPH, come up with safety guidelines. He advised that if they could be met, then they could start to open up just as they are opening up in his school districts. Mr. Cole stated that if they could move forward with a limited opening working with CDC guidelines, then they should move forward. If those guidelines cannot be met, then he suggested shutting it down. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the more she listened to the discussion, the more she was concerned with Staff because if contact tracing was part of the CDC guidelines and Staff comes in contact with a COVID positive person, there was no way of knowing because no one is reporting it to the Staff. She noted that she agreed that Staff was there to serve the public, but also agreed that they should not put them in harm's way. Mrs. Mitchell stated that in the City, they have appointments. Responding to Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Harline advised that when someone goes into Customer Service, they usually go to the counter and they can trace them that way. He noted that both in the library and in Customer Service they have cameras and if they ask somebody for their name, they do not request an ID. Regarding temperature checks, Mr. Harline stated that they were consistent, but he would be very surprised if it was accurate. Mrs. Mitchell stated that her concern with contact tracing was if the employees were not notified. Mr. Anderson stated that if somebody was getting contact traced with Public Health, they retrace their steps and they would tell them that they were at the library. Mrs. Mitchell stated that they would hope that they would tell them that they were at the library.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 10 Mr. Lindell moved to recommend that the library partially reopen the week of November 1st, as recommended by Staff, with additional details in the plan which include extra cleaning protocols, even if there was an additional cost involved, and no contact entry, and allow Staff to proceed with those instructions with the understanding that if there was a problem, they could close the library immediately. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole. Mr. Neil stated he wanted to include to mandate that Staff had a calibrated no-touch thermometer reading for everyone coming into the library. Mr. Cole seconded the amendment to the motion. Mr. Slavin stated that he was of the belief that they hire people in the City to do jobs for them, and they build trust in their ability to do that job. He stated that they have great trust in Mrs. Mitchell, Chief Johnson, Mr. Harline, and Mr. Sylvester and they have done those jobs. Mr. Slavin stated that he found that the discussions where now they were addressing what kinds of thermometers would be used at the library was really a recipe for bogging City government down if they were going to have Council be involved in the day-to-day operations at this level. He stated to just get these things done and that they have pitched this idea of safety to the library and they have said exactly what the point was and that was they cannot eliminate the risk, they could only reduce the risk and know what the risk was. Mr. Hare agreed with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Sudler. He stated that he knew it was going to be one way in and one way out. He asked when people come into the library have someone there that was going to write their name and check their ID, and the time they came in. Mr. Hare stated that it would be another control that could help because someone could come in at 9:00 a.m., not sign in or anything, and just be there all day. Mr. Neil moved to amend the motion to recommend the library partially reopen the week of November 1st, as recommended by Staff, with additional details in the plan which include extra cleaning protocols, even if there is an additional cost involved, and no contact entry, and allow Staff to proceed with those instructions with the understanding that if there is a problem, they can close the library immediately, and to mandate that Staff have a calibrated, no-touch thermometer reading for everyone coming into the library. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes (Neil, Cole, Rocha, Lindell, Caldwell, and Dix), three (3) no (Sudler, Taylor, and Hare), one (1) abstention (Anderson), and one (1) absent (Slavin). The motion to recommend the library partially reopen the week of November 1st, as recommended by Staff, with additional details in the plan which include extra cleaning protocols, even if there is an additional cost involved, and no contact entry, and allow Staff to proceed with those instructions with the understanding that if there is a problem, they can close the library immediately, and to mandate that Staff have a calibrated, no-touch thermometer reading for

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 11 everyone coming into the library was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes (Neil, Cole, Rocha, Lindell, Caldwell, and Dix), three (3) no (Sudler, Taylor, and Hare), and one (1) absent (Slavin). By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Updates on the Progress of the Master Plans for Each of the Major Parks Mr. Matthew Harline, Assistant City Manager, and Mr. Robin Eaton, Parks and Recreation Director, provided and update regarding the progress of the Master Plans for each of the Major Parks. Responding to Mr. Neil regarding Mallard Pond Park, Mr. Eaton stated that they have a path and lighting that goes through that park and the tree limbs were starting to block some of the lighting, so they trimmed them from around the lighting. Responding to Col. Dix, Mr. Harline stated that there were many general notices. He noted that they are still in an early process and that more public input will be sought. Mr. Neil moved to recommend acceptance of the report, seconded by Mr. Taylor and carried with Colonel Dix voting no. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Gate/Park Security (Schutte Park) Mr. Matthew Harline, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the background information regarding the gate and park security at Schutte Park. Staff recommended 1. Create signage that specifies the hours for Schutte Park. 2. Proceed with a gate at the entrance to the main parking lot to the John W. Pitts Recreation Center. 3. Pursue options for a second gate across Electric Avenue directly south of the main entrance to the Pitts Center. 4. Look into installing security cameras in the Pitts Center Parking lot and near the skate park/dog park/playground areas. Mr. Neil stated that it seemed a little bit premature and that he would like to have more of the details. Col. Dix stated that he could leave the road at virtually the full length of the park and bypass any obstacle that they put at the intersection. Mr. Harline stated that was an accurate statement if someone was coming off of Hazlettville North Street. Mr. Harline stated that this would be a very good deterrent effect, but agreed with Mr. Neil that there were a lot of details they needed to work out. He noted that if they do not put up proper fencing to go along with the gates, they would be easily defeated.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 12 Mr. Harline advised that they were looking into the possibility of making it a requirement for people to register the space if they were going to have a party over a certain size. He noted that late night spontaneous parties in the hundreds have been seen in parks. Mr. Harline stated that they have almost always seen a huge mess left behind for Staff. He advised that there may be a constitutional issue and that may be impossible, but they would like to purse that option. Mr. Hare stated that Staff knew what they needed to do and it was up to them to put the plan together and state what they were going to do and do it. He noted that he did not know if they had to approve it to put a gate up to stop this. Mr. Slavin stated there was a reason why the Council Committee structure was set up to be a recommendation to Council and then two weeks later, Council took the matter up. He noted that it was meant for items that deserve a level of debate and time to take an involvement from the public to make critical decisions about the vision and strategy for the City. Mr. Slavin stated that it was absurd to think that they were requiring Staff to come to the Committee for a gate replacement that would take four weeks to get approved from Council before they could even begin the process of procuring and putting the solution in place. He noted that this was a recipe for slowing the City down to a crawl and that it has to stop. Responding to Col. Dix, Mr. Anderson stated that there is a certain dollar limit where the Committee gets involved in these decisions. Mr. Anderson stated that it was just the gate, but the whole security goes beyond that particular dollar limit. He noted that security was going to be fundamental to the master plan. Mr. Anderson stated that the security vision had to be addressed, which they see was a lot more than the gate in the report because if they were going to add amenities such as dog park and skate park in the back, there had to be an idea of the security that they were going to have in the future. Mr. Neil stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Slavin, but that they have to be informed so they are not blind sided. Mr. Hare moved for adjournment of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Chairman Lindell presiding.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 13 Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved that item #3 - Pay for Performance Evaluation System be postponed to another meeting, seconded by Mr. Sudler. Responding to Mr. Lindell, Mr. Harline advised that there were a couple of presenters from Siegel on the meeting who were ready to go. Mr. Lindell stated that he would like to hear at least the findings from the presenters tonight and perhaps not take any action on it to allow further digestion of the information. Mr. Slavin stated they could listen to the presentation and pass it onto Council with no recommendation and then be prepared to rehear it again at the Council meeting to take action in two weeks so there was no delay in the process. Mr. Neil withdrew his motion. Mr. Sudler withdrew his second. Mr. Neil moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. Downtown Dover Partnership Parking Solutions During the Regular City Council meeting of June 22, 2020, Council members approved the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee's recommendation approving continuation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with discussion to be brought back to Council, during the Regular City Council meeting of June 22, 2020. Ms. Diane Laird, Executive Director of the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP), Mr. Chris Raubacher, DDP Parking Committee, and Mr. Jed Hatfield, President of Colonial Parking, Inc., reviewed the background information for the Downtown Dover Partnership (DDP) Parking Solutions. Ms. Laird advised that proceeding with the signature of the MOU to design the parking solution included implementation of that solution. She advised that if the implementation does not take place, the DDP would be required to pay about $35,000 in planning fees for the solution. Responding to Mr. Lindell, Ms. Laird stated that the ask was to proceed with the MOU to design and implement the solution that is derived. Mr. Neil stated that they took the first step of the jigsaw during the Regular Council meeting of October 12, 2020, when Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 2020-12 - Amending Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, Division 2 - Metered Parking, Division 3 - Removal and Disposition of Illegally Parked or Abandoned Vehicles, Sec. 106-181 - Definitions, and Division 4 - Downtown Parking. Mr. Neil noted that ordinance was necessary to permit the DDP to enter into this agreement with Colonial. (City Clerk's Office Note: Proposed Ordinance #2020-12 is scheduled for the Final Reading during the Regular City Council meeting on October 23, 2020.)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 14 Mr. Slavin reminded members that they only make a recommendation to Council. He stated that by the time the ordinance had passed, this would then follow. Mr. Hatfield stated that the development phase was actually performed before the MOU was signed and executed and there was no financial commitment. He noted that it was not until the development work of the program, which is what is driving that fee. Mr. Neil moved to recommend moving forward with the authorization pending the approval of proposed ordinance #2020-12 at the Regular City Council meeting on October 26, 2020. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cole and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Grants - Fiscal Year 2020 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program - Joint Grant with Smyrna Police Department & Kent County Chief Johnson, Dover Police Department, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Fiscal Year 2020 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program - Joint Grant with Smyrna Police Department & Kent County. Staff recommended approval of the grant project as requested. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the grant project, as recommended by the Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Grants - Fiscal Year 2021 Fund to Combat Violent Crime Chief Johnson, Dover Police Department, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the Fiscal Year 2021 Fund to Combat Violent Crime Grant. Staff recommended approval of the grant and intended purchases. Responding to Mr. Lindell, regarding vendors, Chief Johnson stated that most of this was recurring. Mr. Lindell stated that he knew the grants were different as far as they were getting them at random parts of the year. Chief Johnson stated that there was a challenge there when grants become available, the deadlines were instituted by the issuers of the particular grants. He advised that for the last 10 to 20 working days, he had been having active discussions with his staff to address assuring that their timing was appropriate. Chief Johnson stated that this was a regular recurring item that has great utility for them.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 15 Mr. Sudler asked how they knew that other competitors were given the opportunity to compete for the bidding process. He stated that they needed to make sure that, across the board, uniform guidelines were being adhered to so that they could ensure they were representing the City in the best manner. Mr. Sudler noted that he thought they needed to focus on some of the bids that were being awarded to make sure that things were being done properly and in accordance with how they were supposed to be across the board. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Chief Johnson advised that the education part was leaning into the preventative piece. Responding to Mr. Lindell's questions, Chief Johnson provided the following information: • The recurring grants were fairly predictable. There was a range of things that they could obtain in each of the state and federal level grants that were managed by the state. They would vary their requests based on the needs of the particular budget year. • Regarding the recurring grants to help fund body cameras, they were having those discussions. There was a state level meeting and they discussed the Criminal Justice Council (CJC) and what they might be able to do for them. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of the grant and intended purchases, as recommended by Staff, seconded by Mr. Taylor and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Pay for Performance Evaluation System Mrs. Kim Hawkins, Human Resources Director, and Ms. Paula Singer, Ms. Andrea Averill, and Ms. Katie Kiesel, Segal, reviewed the information located in the packet regarding Pay for Performance Evaluation System. Staff recommended approval of the implementation of a Pay for Performance Evaluation system for non-bargaining employees with the following schedule: Pilot period to begin July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022; Full implementation July 1, 2022; First pay for performance increase to be provided July 1, 2023. Mr. Sudler stated that the City of Dover was moving towards a transformational leadership style and culture and asked how they felt it fit in and if they thought it was a great representation and component with their shared visions. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Ms. Averill stated that it does support transformational change. She advised that the process would begin to identify the goals that were needed to move that transformation forward and that would be included in the process.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 16 Mr. Anderson stated he had some unease with recommendation #12 - Reevaluate the process for the Council to conduct performance evaluations. He stated that it should be looked at some where in the future. Mr. Anderson noted that if an employee works for everybody equally on the Council, to have one or a couple control whether or not they got a pay raise without input of everyone else was problematic. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Averill stated the department heads reviewing every rating occur at the final rating. She advised that there would only be a rating applied at the year-end evaluation and the other quarterly reviews would just be a conversation about progress, work goals, feedback and other performance observation shared. Ms. Averill stated that there would be no rating until the end of the cycle. Responding to Mr. Anderson, Ms. Singer stated for the quarterlies, it is the employee and the supervisor and the others occur only annually. Ms. Singer noted that the department heads would only look at the final ratings, they were not looking at every detail. Mr. Sudler asked if there would be an opportunity for the employee to rate the supervisor, in regard to whether or not they were being supportive, giving accurate direction, or just one rating. Responding, Ms. Singer stated that it was only the supervisor rating the employee, but that was something they were recommending as an add-on after the process settled down. She noted that there were a number of forms and processes that could be used for employee rating supervisors, so they would have a multi-rater input which could be important, but they thought they would start with the recommendations, taking one step at a time. Mr. Sudler stated this was a great first step, but that it was equally important to have a pulse on the climate of the organization through the employees to have an opportunity to rate the supervisor's behavior and effectiveness. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Ms. Averill stated that an appeal process would be part of the process. She stated there would be a limited window of time where employees could request an appeal to the human resources function and the City Manager could participate in that review. Responding to Mr. Taylor, Mrs. Hawkins stated they do not currently have an appeal process in place. She advised that a process would have to be drafted and they had some of that discussion in internal meetings with Segal. Mr. Taylor stated that component would have to be a necessity for him to go forward with the process. Mr. Neil stated that they were talking about so many factors, for instance, a constant increase in individuals for performance on a straight level or bonuses as a result of the work that they were doing. He stated that has to be part of this conversation. Responding to Mr. Hare, Ms. Averill stated that if a manager gave an employee an evaluation and they received a raise and they did not like it, they could appeal the rating. Ms. Singer stated that if they added the component, then the employee could

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 17 then rate the manager. She advised that it would probably be at a different cycle. Addressing Mr. Hare’s concerns regarding employees rating their managers, Ms. Averill stated that what many organizations do is gather feedback in terms of the employees to the manager. She stated that they would get the observations about performance and then aggregate those themes and provide that to the manager. Ms. Averill advised that it would be the manager's decision to report it to a department head and the department head would vet assigning that rating, which would then equate to a salary increase, or some type of reward. Mr. Hare asked if the manager would be rated by the department head. Responding, Ms. Singer stated that was a second level sign off. She advised that the manager would sign off and then the department head would sign off. Mrs. Hawkins stated that, in conversations with Segal, the idea of 360 feedback was discussed regarding evaluation by department heads’ direct reports or whoever their primary customers were. She stated that they could develop a 360 feedback program that was based on the competencies that were developed and that tie into the performance development program. Mr. Anderson stated that he would like to see the definition of terms and how they were actually graded. He noted that there was also backup material that they had not seen. Ms. Singer stated that they were in the process of finalizing that information and that they would provide it. Ms. Singer noted that this was a pilot program. Mr. Hare stated that he felt they needed to wait until they hire the new City Manager before taking action on this item. Mr. Sudler stated he would be interested in seeing the instruments or criteria for the instruments, the composite scores, how they were going to score them, and what it actually measures. Mr. Hare moved to table this item in Committee until a new City Manager is hired, or when it is brought back up again by the Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Slavin stated, for clarification, that they did not mean that they were telling Staff and the consultants to stop reflecting on the item. He stated that he would assume they were going to continue to refine it, to make it an actionable item for when it is considered for Council again. Mr. Hare and Mr. Anderson agreed with the clarification. Mr. Harline stated that they had enough direction to put some finer points on it with the consultants. He noted that the consultants were winding down their work and if they wanted to bring them back, he would talk with Ms. Singer as to how flexible they were with their time within the scope of the contract.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 18 Mr. Neil’s call for the question was unanimously carried. Mr. Hare moved to table this item in Committee until a new City Manager is hired, or when it is brought back up again by the Committee, and for Staff to continue to refine the Pay for Performance Evaluation System. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Proposed Ordinance #2020-14 - Project Carry-Forward Budget Balances/Proposed Budget Amendments Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager and Mr. Matthew Harline, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the proposed budget amendments and proposed Ordinance #2020-14. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Budget Amendments totaling $8,420,300 for Fiscal Year 2021 and adoption of Ordinance #2020-14. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding street improvements, Mr. Harline stated that he could get him a list of whic streets were completed and which ones were being carried forward. Mr. Hare moved to recommend approval of the proposed Budget Amendments totaling $8,420,300 for Fiscal Year 2021 and adoption of Ordinance #2020-14. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the Committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting.) Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Mr. Lindell moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Council Committee of the Whole Report, seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 19 QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT Members were provided the Quarterly Revenue Report as of September 30, 2020. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for acceptance of the Quarterly Revenue Report as of September 2020. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 2020/21 ANNUAL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (DEFERRED DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING OF MAY 11, 2020) Mayor Christiansen recommended the appointment of Alfreda F. Dean to serve on the Election Board as the First District Representative (to fill the expired term of Anita L. McDowell-Boyer) for a term to expire May 10, 2021. By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the appointment of Alfreda F. Dean, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CHRISTIANSEN - SILVER LAKE COMMISSION - TWO YEAR STAGGERED TERMS TO EXPIRE JUNE 14, 2021 (THE FIRST REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN JUNE) Mayor Christiansen recommended the following appointments to the Silver Lake Commission: Tricia K. Arndt Zachery C. Carter By consent agenda, Mr. Neil moved for approval of the appointments, as recommended by Mayor Christiansen. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rocha and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. UPDATE ON IN-PERSON MEETINGS Mr. Matt Harline, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the information and concerns resulting from a hybrid meeting test that was conducted on October 7, 2020 with Mrs. Traci McDowell, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Mr. Andy Siegel, and Ms. Janella Tauchus, as well as the information gathered from contacting potential off-site meeting locations. Responding to Mr. Sudler, Mrs. Donna Mitchell, City Manager, advised that she spoke with Dr. Henderson, the Capital School District Superintendent, and she referred them to Mr. Ben Wells in their technology department. Mrs. Mitchell noted that Mr. Wells scheduled a meeting with the City but was then unable to attend. She advised that Ms. Janella Tauchus, Assistant City Clerk, has been trying to contact him since then; however, he has not returned her calls. Mrs. Mitchell noted that Capital School District employees are still working remotely.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 20 FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2020-14 Council President Hare reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers, on the City's website at www.cityofdover.com under "Government," or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 736-7008 or cityclerk@dover.de.us. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting of November 9, 2020. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: #2020-14 - Project Carry-Forward Budget Balances/Proposed Budget Amendments REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 35 AND 39 NORTH NEW STREET - FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2020-15 A request was received to rezone properties located at 35 and 39 North New Street, consisting of 5,952 SF +/- and 3,877 SF +/-. The properties are zoned RG-3 (Group Housing Zone) and the proposed zoning is RG-1 (General Residence Zone). The owner of record is National Council on Agricultural Life & Labor Research Fund, Inc. (NCALL). Prior to amending the zoning ordinances and zoning map of the City of Dover, a public hearing is required. Mr. Neil moved to refer the request to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2020 and set a public hearing for December 14, 2020 at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried. In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2020-15 as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the City of Dover by Changing the Zoning Designation of Properties Located at 35 and 39 North New Street REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 630 WEST DIVISION STREET - FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2020-16 A request was received to rezone property located at 630 West Division Street, consisting of 1.08 acres (47,275.3 SF +/-). The property is zoned C-3 (Service Commercial Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The proposed zoning is IO (Institutional and Office Zone) subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The owner of record is Silver Linings Holding Corporation c/o Tolano Anderson and the equitable owner is Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing. Prior to amending the zoning ordinances and zoning map of the City of Dover, a public hearing is required. Mr. Neil moved to refer the request to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2020 and set a public hearing for December 14, 2020 at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 21 In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #2020-16 as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows: An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the City of Dover by Changing the Zoning Designation of Property Located at 630 West Division Street FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2020-12 The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of February 22, 2016. Council President Hare reminded members of the public that copies of the proposed ordinance were available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or on the City’s website at www.cityofdover.com under “Government.” Mr. Neil moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. By motion of Mr. Neil, seconded by Mr. Taylor, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote, adopted Ordinance #2020-12, as follows: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: That Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III. - Stopping, Standing and Parking – Division 2. – Metered Parking of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows: DIVISION 2. - METERED PARKING Sec. 106-161. - Payment for leasing parking meters. The payment for the leasing or purchase of parking meters within the designated area is to be provided by the Downtown Dover Partnership solely from the receipts, funds and revenues obtained by the Partnership from the operation of parking systems. (Code 1968, § 31-72; Code 1981, § 13-46) Sec. 106-162. - Marking parking spaces and erecting meters. (a) Upon those streets or portions of streets which the city council has designated as parking meter zones, the city manager shall cause parking spaces to be marked on the curb or pavement, or by other appropriate means, and the Downtown Dover Partnership shall be authorized to install a parking meter at each space or series of spaces so marked, as they deem appropriate. (b) The city council may authorize the city manager to enter into an agreement with the Downtown Dover Partnership to manage parking on city-owned lots within the designated area and extend the installation and management of a parking system thereon. (Code 1968, § 31-70; Code 1981, § 13-47)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 22 Sec. 106-163. - Use of meters required. (a) Payment. Upon entering a parking meter zone when the parking meter regulations are in effect, the operator of a vehicle shall immediately make the required payment in U.S. currency by coin, cash, debit card, credit card, or other acceptable method of payment, in the parking meter situated at or near the parking space and operate the meter according to the instructions thereon. Failure to make the required payment shall result in a fine in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 106-212 - Downtown Dover Partnership authority and Parking limitations., fines and fees, set by the Downtown Dover Partnership. (b) Payments accepted. All parking meters shall be adjusted so that when properly operated, payments may be made at any time throughout the time range of the meters, with each payment permitting the vehicle to be parked in a metered parking space for a period as in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 106-212 - Downtown Dover Partnership authority and Parking limitations., fees and fines, set by the Downtown Dover Partnership. (c) Overtime parking. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow a vehicle to remain parked in a parking meter zone for a period of time in excess of that prescribed in subsection (b) of this section for the particular payment. It shall be prima facie evidence of an overtime parking violation when the parking meter shall indicate by proper signal that the lawful parking period has expired. (d) Exceptions. The use of parking meters shall not be required on Sundays and legal holidays. (Code 1968, §§ 31-73, 31-74; Code 1981, § 13-48; Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009; Ord. No. 2015-09, 6-8-2015 ) Sec. 106-164. - Violations; penalties. (a) Generally. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this article or of aiding, abetting or assisting in the violation of said provisions shall be sentenced to pay a fine as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (b) Enhanced civil enforcement authority. If three or more violations of this article have been issued to a vehicle and those violations are more than 30 days past due, or if accumulated unpaid violations of this article exceed more than $100.00, the vehicle shall be subject to enhanced civil enforcement, as follows: (1) Such vehicle found parked on any street in the city shall be immobilized by any police officer or parking enforcement employee of this city in such manner as to prevent its operation. Any vehicle so immobilized or impounded shall not be released to its lawful owner until all unpaid violations and applicable administrative fees issued to such owner have been discharged by payment in full, together with payment for the costs of immobilizing, releasing, and storing such vehicle. The owner shall sign a receipt for such vehicle. Payment for any such towing shall be in accordance with the towing costs outlined in the current agreement between the police

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 23 department and the towing operator. If the vehicle is a tractor-trailer combination, the trailer may be released to an authorized agent if the tractor-trailer is immobilized pursuant to this section. (2) In any case involving immobilization of a vehicle pursuant to this section, the police officer or parking enforcement employee shall place on such vehicle, in a conspicuous manner, notice sufficient to warn any individual that such vehicle has been immobilized and that any attempt to move such vehicle might result in damage to such vehicle. (3) Any vehicle remaining immobilized and not released for 24 hours may be towed and impounded at the direction of a police officer or parking enforcement employee. (4) Any person who unlawfully removes a device for immobilization of a vehicle shall be fined as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (5) Any person who tows or otherwise moves an immobilized vehicle without authorization by the chief of police or his designee shall be fined as provided for in Appendix F—Fees and Fines. (c) Cost. No cost will be assessed if payment of the penalty as hereinbefore imposed is voluntarily paid without the necessity of a hearing before the proper official. (Code 1968, § 31-77; Ord. of 8-25-1971, § 1; Code 1981, § 13-49; Ord. No. 2009-09, 6-22-2009; Ord. No. 2011-22, 9-26-2011; Ord. No. 2015-09, 6-8-2015 ; Ord. No. 2015-16, 10-26-2015 ; Ord. No. 2016-05, 2-22-2016 ) Secs. 106-165—106-180. - Reserved. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III. - Stopping, Standing and Parking – Division 3. – Removal and Disposition of Illegally Parked or Abandoned Vehicles, Sec. 106-181. - Definitions of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows: The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Enforcement officer means any duly authorized person granted authority in writing to enforce parking regulations by the Downtown Dover Partnership or any member of the police department. (Code 1981, § 13-56)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 24 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: That Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III. - Stopping, Standing and Parking – Division 4. –Downtown Parking of the Dover Code be amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4. - DOWNTOWN PARKING Sec. 106-211. - Definitions. As used in this division, all terms shall have the same meaning as provided in 21 Del. C. § 101 et seq., unless the context requires otherwise. In addition, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: Designated area means those streets or portions of streets within the downtown business district and any city-owned parking lot so designated by the city council as parking meter zones to be controlled by the Downtown Dover Partnership. Downtown business district means that part of the city bounded by and including South State Street, North Street, Queen Street and Reed Street, and any other areas designated by the city manager. (Code 1981, § 13-70; Ord. of 12-11-1995) Sec. 106-212. – Downtown Dover Partnership authority and Parking limitations. (a) Overtime parking. No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle within any designated area for a longer period of time than is permitted by the applicable traffic control device. (b) Evading time limits. No person shall move a vehicle from one parking space to any other parking space for the purpose of evading time limitations on parking. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any vehicle that is moved from one space to another space in the immediate area has been moved for the purpose of evading time limitations on parking. (c) Second ticket. A second parking ticket may be issued for the same violation, provided that more than two hours have elapsed since the issuance of the first ticket. No more than two parking tickets may be issued per day for violating subsection (a) of this section. (d) Towing of vehicles. Vehicles parked in a time-limited zone in excess of 24 hours may be towed. (e) Within the designated area, the Downtown Dover Partnership shall have the authority to establish parking regulations and policies consistent with Chapter 106 – Traffic and Vehicles, as deemed appropriate, including, but not limited to, the installation of parking meters, setting and collection of parking fees, enforcement of parking regulations and collection of fines, and shall retain all receipts therefrom. (Code 1981, § 13-71; Ord. of 12-11-1995; Ord. of 10-22-2007)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 25 Secs. 106-213 – Effective date and duration: This ordinance shall be effective upon the designation of the parking meter zones and shall be reviewed at the end of the first two years and at least every five years thereafter to ensure that the purposes of this ordinance are being achieved and may be void if not effective. Secs. 106-214—106-234. - Reserved. ADOPTED: OCTOBER 26, 2020 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-13 - DONNA S. MITCHELL The City Clerk read Resolution No. 2020-13 into the record, as follows: WHEREAS, in July 1978, Donna S. Mitchell began her career with the City of Dover's Finance Department serving as Accountant, Payroll Specialist and Financial Reporting Manager until July 1989 when she left City employment. Mrs. Mitchell returned to the City of Dover as the Finance Director/Controller/Treasurer on October 16, 2000 and was appointed to the position of City Manager on December 11, 2017. She will conclude her service on October 30, 2020, with an official retirement date of June 4, 2021; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Mitchell's keen intellect, vast accumulated experience, detailed knowledge of the City's financial and operational systems, and her passion for professional development have equipped her with a remarkable ability to address questions regarding every aspect of the City of Dover. She guided Dover through many complex challenges and provided steady leadership through the COVID-19 pandemic and other matters important to the City; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Mitchell has thoughtfully developed even-handed fiscal strategies that provided value to the City's citizens and customers. She has also laid a sound financial foundation for the future of Dover by prudently managing unfunded liabilities and creating the opportunity to focus on the City's capital needs, while she carefully considered and remained sensitive to the needs of the workforce. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council recognize that Donna S. Mitchell will be sorely missed and express their sincere appreciation to her and her family for the dedicated years of service and personal sacrifices made on behalf of the City of Dover, and wish her and her family success in all future endeavors. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to make this resolution a part of the permanent records of the City of Dover as a lasting symbol of appreciation and gratitude to Donna S. Mitchell. ADOPTED: OCTOBER 26, 2020 On behalf of members of City Council and the citizens of the City of Dover, Mrs. Erica Tatman, Mrs. Mitchell’s daughter, presented Mrs. Mitchell with the Resolution, a Dover Cup, and the key to the City in recognition of her many years of service with the City of Dover.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 26 Mrs. Mitchell thanked members for the opportunity to serve the citizens of the City of Dover and expressed her appreciation for all the support that they had given her over the years. Council President Hare thanked Mrs. Mitchell, noting that it had been an honor and a pleasure to work with her and that she was always there when they needed her. Mr. Slavin thanked Mrs. Mitchell for her service to the City, noting that he believed she was a true public servant and a true servant of others as well. He stated that he would always consider it a highlight of his career that he could count on Mrs. Mitchell as a colleague and work side-by-side. Mr. Anderson thanked Mrs. Mitchell for her service to the City twice and the excellence that she brought. He stated that the City was so much better for her having been there. Mr. Anderson noted that the City used to have a balance in the thousands and now it has balances in the millions; the bond ratings have increased; the taxpayers are in a much better position concerning unfunded liabilities; the City is no longer a hundred million dollars behind the curve; and the future of the retirees is secure. He stated that the work that Mrs. Mitchell had done was incredible and the passion that she brought caring for the citizens, whether it was making a simple phone call for something like a road sign all the way up to bond issues and multimillion dollar transactions. Mr. Anderson noted that he appreciated Mrs. Mitchell and being able to call her a friend. He thanked her for everything she had done, noted that she would be missed, and hoped that she would enjoy life in retirement. Mr. Neil, noting that Mrs. Mitchell worked 24/7 answering emails on Saturday and Sunday, stated that her successor was going to have very large shoes to fill. He stated that he considered it a privilege to have had a chance to work with her and he thanked her for her service. Mr. Sudler stated that he admired Mrs. Mitchell’s work performance and everything she had accomplished. He noted that he really appreciated how she took the diversity inclusion report to heart and really valued what information it brought to the City of Dover and what she could do to try to address those recommendations. Mr. Sudler stated that it had been a pleasure working with her. Mr. Rocha echoed what everyone had stated, noting that Mrs. Mitchell had been very responsive and very helpful to him in his short time on Council. He advised that he could just feel it in her spirit each time they communicated, noting that she had responded after hours to questions and that she would be sorely missed. He congratulated Mrs. Mitchell on her retirement and hoped that she would enjoy her travels around the United States. Mr. Taylor thanked Mrs. Mitchell for modeling excellence on a daily basis, noting that her balanced approach to everything. He stated that it was soothing, at times, watching her handle some of the opportunities to showcase her talent. Mr. Taylor advised that there is so much life after the City of Dover and he encouraged her to go and enjoy it. Mayor Christiansen, on behalf of the citizens of the City of Dover, as well as himself, thanked Mrs. Mitchell. Mr. Anderson moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2020-13, seconded by Mr. Neil and unanimously carried.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2020 PAGE 27 CITY MANAGER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Matt Harline, Assistant City Manager, reminded members that Halloween would be observed Saturday, October 31st from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. He noted that it was an hour earlier to give people more time to social distance. Mr. Harline stated that they were asking kids, 12 and under, to only go to those houses with their exterior lights on and to wear face coverings and stick to the Governor's COVID-19 guidelines. Mayor Christiansen requested everyone to practice Corona Courtesies and to hand out packaged candy only. Mr. Harline stated that Council did a great job in the financial acumen that Mrs. Donna Mitchell brought to the City of Dover. He noted that her work ethic was epic and a tremendous challenge to the next person who follows her. Mr. Harline advised that they may not have seen every day how much heart and warmth Mrs. Mitchell brought to the job, noting that she honestly cares about every one of the City’s employees. He stated that Mrs. Mitchell was one of his mentors and it was an honor to work with her. COUNCIL MEMBERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Rocha announce that Thursday, October 29th , from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. the West Side Family Health Care on Forrest Avenue was holding its free fall harvest giveaway of USDA food boxes of meat, dairy, produce, and eggs. He also noted that they would be giving away COVID-19 hygiene kits and free flu shots. Mr. Anderson announced that there would be an event to honor victims of crime and hopefully discuss some solutions at Legislative Mall the following afternoon from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and invited anyone who was interested to attend. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. TRACI A. McDOWELL CITY CLERK All ordinances, resolutions, motions, and orders adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of October 26, 2020 are hereby approved. ROBIN R. CHRISTIANSEN MAYOR /TM S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Council-Minutes\2020\10-26-2020 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES.wpd

PETITION TO AMEND TEXT of Dover Code of Ordinances and Appendix B: Zoning Ordinance Report to the Dover City Council for November 9, 2020 Report on Recommendation of Dover Planning Commission from October 19, 2020 with Development Advisory Committee Review Report Proposed Changes: Text Amendments to the following: • Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B: Zoning (Zoning Ordinance) o Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 20B – Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone – Industrial aviation and aeronautics center (IPM3) o Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 23 – Wireless Communications Facilities o Article 12 – Definitions • Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 98 – Street, Sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Other Public Places • Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix F – Fees and Fines Summary of Amendments: This proposed Ordinance adds provisions for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) by adding a new Section 23 – Wireless Communication Facilities to the Zoning Ordinance and completing other amendments to the Dover Code of Ordinances. This proposed Ordinance provides definitions; establishes certain general and specific standards relating to the location, placement, construction and maintenance of Small WCF, Non-Tower Based WCF, and Tower-Based WCF; provides for the regulations of WCF within the public rights-of-ways and outside public rights-of-way on properties; and provides for the enforcement of said regulations. Also associated with this Ordinance is the development of the City of Dover “Small Wireless Communications Facility (SWCF) Design Manual” as referenced for design standards for Small Wireless Communications Facilities. Ordinance Number: Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 Related Document: Preliminary Draft #3 City of Dover Small Wireless Communications Facility (SWCF) Design Manual File Number: MI-20-06

MI-20-06 Text Amendments: Wireless Communications Facilities Planning Commission Recommendation Report from October 16, 2020 Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission Action on MI-20-06: Following a Public Hearing on October 19, 2020 where three (3) members of the public spoke, the Planning Commission voted (8-0) to recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment. See the included Excerpt of the Meeting Minutes of the October 19, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: • Development Advisory Committee Comments: Electric Department, Department of Water & Wastewater, Public Works Department, Office of the Fire Marshal, DelDOT • Copy of PowerPoint Presentation by Planning Staff on MI-20-06 as presented to Planning Commission on October 19, 2020 • Excerpt of Draft Minutes from October 19, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting • Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 for Wireless Communications Facilities (FINAL Reading Version) • Preliminary Draft #3 City of Dover Small Wireless Communications Facility (SWCF) Design Manual (11-2-2020) The following Report was prepared regarding MI-20-06 Text Amendment: Wireless Communications Facilities. This includes the City Planner’s Report and comments received on the proposed Text Amendment. This information was provided to the Planning Commission for their October 19, 2020 meeting. MI-20-06 Text Amendment: Wireless Communications Facilities Identification of Need for Regulations The current Zoning Ordinance is limited in its discussion of telecommunication and antennae facilities. Over the last twenty years as this technology has expanded, the Planning Office has utilized “Code Interpretation Memo #4: Telecommunications Antennae – Permits and Review Procedures” dated January 26, 1999. This outlined the use of the existing Building Permit application processes, the Administrative Site Plan process, and the Conditional Use review process for placements in residential zones. The Board of Adjustment was often involved in the review of variances to exceed the maximum height limits established in Code. Additionally, Federal and State actions have established regulatory measures that must be adhered to for these types of facilities. Since mid-2018, the City has been researching and developing a strategy to establish a regulatory framework for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF). The purpose is to establish uniform standards for the siting, design, permitting, installation, maintenance, and use of Wireless Communication Facilities in the City of Dover. The Proposed Ordinance and associated documents will establish regulations, application & review processes, and fees.

MI-20-06 Text Amendments: Wireless Communications Facilities Planning Commission Recommendation Report from October 16, 2020 Page 3 of 6 Wireless Communications Facilities include Small Wireless Communications Facilities (Small WCF) such as those attached to utility poles; Non-Tower Based Wireless Communications Facilities like those antennae attached to buildings or water towers; and Tower Based Wireless Communications Facilities such as monopoles and lattice or guyed towers. Locations of the facilities include those within public rights-of-way and on properties. The so-called fourth and fifth generation technologies (4G and 5G) require more numerous transmitters and antennae to transmit the volume or calls and text, but especially data. The preferred option by private sector companies is to attach these Small WCF to existing streetlights and other infrastructure within rights-of-way. A large amount of that existing infrastructure in the rights-of-way belongs to the City of Dover. Attachment to City of Dover equipment will require the City to enter into agreements (Master License Agreements) with various companies to spell out the terms and conditions prior to having any equipment attached to a City pole. Currently, the City is in negotiation with AT&T (New Cingular Wireless, PCS LLC) and Verizon for Master License Agreements (MLAs). In development provisions for the placement of new poles for Small Wireless Communication Facilities (Small WCF), we must take into account that Federal Law prohibits “effective prohibition” of deploying the necessary Small WCF. Effective prohibition can be described as: A regulation that materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment. Effective prohibition occurs when a state or local legal requirement materially inhibits a provider’s ability to engage in any of a variety of activities related to its provision of service. It means that the service provider can assert the right to some facility somewhere nearby, not only when filling a coverage gap but also when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or otherwise improving service capabilities. This does NOT prohibit us from making reasonable requirements to locate across a street, cover make-ready costs, or meet higher aesthetic standards in historic and other pre-designated sensitive areas. It is important to understand as we move forward that the technology provides the ability to improve wireless data transmission which can be advantageous to the City, residents and local businesses. However, current technology also defines the wireless system implementation needs. For example, the placement of Small WCF may be need every 400 to 700 feet for complete network availability. The City needs to move forward with regulations that meet Federal guidelines but incorporate community standards to the extent possible. Development of the Text Amendments The development of provisions related to Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) for the City of Dover has been a team effort of many City Departments including City Manager’s Office, Electric Department, Department of Public Works, and the Planning Office (Department of Planning & Inspections). Initially, the City Manager’s Office retained the services of the Cohen Law Group and Mike Roberts, an attorney with the firm drafted a model documents including an initial draft WCF ordinance, a draft Design Manual and a draft Master License Agreement. Since then the Planning Office (Principal Planner Dawn Melson-Williams and City Planner Mr. Hugg) have worked to modify the Proposed Ordinance and a Design Manual documents in cooperation with the Electric Department to shape it to the City needs and processes. The City Manager’s Office and Electric Department have worked with the Master License Agreements.

MI-20-06 Text Amendments: Wireless Communications Facilities Planning Commission Recommendation Report from October 16, 2020 Page 4 of 6 The approach taken related with Small WCFs in some jurisdictions also involves a Design Manual; the City of Dover is also working to develop such a manual. The City has been contacted by future applicants with some concepts for potential location requests for Wireless Communications Facilities with attachments to existing infrastructure and/or the placement of new poles. This is helping us to understand and formulate the considerations for review and the needed application and interdepartmental coordination of procedures. The team has presented updates to the Council Committee of the Whole – Utility Committee on February 11, 2020, July 14, 2020 and September 15, 2020 on the development of provisions and ordinances for Wireless Communications Facilities. In July 2020, the Preliminary Draft of an Ordinance to regulate all Wireless Communications Facilities and an accompanying Small WCF Design Manual that is specifically targeted to Small Wireless Communications Facilities (Small WCF) was presented. Since July the following additional work has occurred: checking Zoning Ordinance for needed amendments and any use of term conflicts and checking Dover Code of Ordinances as related to use of Right-of-way (Chapter 98: Streets) and license agreement provisions of Chapter 110. Also now proposed are the associated fees for Permits and Plan Applications. The refinement of the Draft Ordinance and Design Manual documents were based on input from City Departments, comments from some industry representatives, review by specialized legal services, and Staff research. Following the September 2020 presentation to the CCOW – Utility Committee, direction was given to begin the formal review process for adoption of a Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) regulations for the City of Dover. Current Proposed Text Amendments Key components of the proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance include the following: • Article 5 Section 23 - A new Section 23 titled “Wireless Communications Facilities” is added providing purpose and intent, definitions, applicability, type of activity determination, application procedures, regulations for Small Wireless Communications Facilities, Non-Tower Wireless Communications Facilities, and Tower-Based Wireless Communications Facilities, general requirements, and maintenance and care. • Article 12 Definitions - Changes to the definitions are provided to add definitions of the terms “antenna” and “wireless communications facility.” • Article 3 Section 20B.1 and 20.B2 – In the IPM3 zoning district, it deletes the permitted uses listed in Section 20B.17 and creates new subsection in 20B.22 for them as conditional uses. This is for the uses of broadcasting tower, tower-based WCFs, antennas and satellites dishes which support aviation, aeronautics, or related operations. Also clarifies text listing other conditional uses by creating new subsubsection 20B.21. • Article 5 Section 21 – This section is amended to clarify that wireless communications facilities are not considered to be public utility infrastructure under this subsection and provides reference to appropriate provisions. Key components of the proposed Text Amendments to other portions of the Dover Code of Ordinances include the following:

MI-20-06 Text Amendments: Wireless Communications Facilities Planning Commission Recommendation Report from October 16, 2020 Page 5 of 6 • Chapter 98 – Street, sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Other Public Places, Sec. 98-11– This section is added to establish provisions for the placement of wireless communications facilities within rights-of-way including of “Uses of Rights-of-way Permit” with permit fee and annual fee. • Appendix F – Fees and Fines - This section is amended to establish the various permit fees, application fees, and annual use and attachment fees associated with Wireless Communication Facilities. Small WCF Design Manual Associated with Small Wireless Communication Facilities, a Design Manual is being prepared. The current mark-up form of the Design Manual as of 9/9/2020 is provided for reference: Preliminary Draft #2 (Mark-up) of City of Dover Small Wireless Communications Facility (SWCF) Design Manual. The key topics areas of the Design Manual are as follows: • Definitions • General Standards • Antenna and Accessory Equipment Standards • Pole Standards • Review and Approval • Approval Timing The refinement of the Small WCF Design Manual and its coordination with the Proposed Ordinance is ongoing as is the needed development of the Permit application forms and interdepartmental coordination of procedures. History of Committee and City Council Activity The City Council Committee of the Whole: Utility Committee was presented an Update on Provisions and Development of Ordinance: Wireless Communication Facilities on February 11, 2020 and then an Update and Presentation of Preliminary Draft Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) Ordinance Version 1A – Planning 7-8-2020 on July 14, 2020. The City Council Committee of the Whole: Utility Committee heard an Updated and Presentation of Draft Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) Ordinance Version 2 – Planning 9-9-2020 on September 15, 2020; the CCOW/Utility Committee acted to direct Staff to complete refinements and referred the Ordinance to City Council for First Reading and setting of Public Hearing dates. The Ordinance received a First Reading at the September 28, 2020 City Council meeting. Because text amendments are proposed to the Zoning Ordinance, a Public Hearing and Recommendation by the Planning Commission are required. The Planning Commission hearing is scheduled for October 19, 2020. City Council will conduct a Public Hearing and take Final Action on proposed Ordinance #2019-13 at their meeting of November 9, 2020. At that meeting City Council may act to adopt the whole Ordinance, to adopt part of the Ordinance, and/or to make other amendments to the proposed text. Planning Review and Recommendations: Planning Staff developed the proposed Ordinance #2020-13: Text Amendments for the Wireless Communications Facilities; and therefore, recommend their adoption subject to any identified corrections.

MI-20-06 Text Amendments: Wireless Communications Facilities Planning Commission Recommendation Report from October 16, 2020 Page 6 of 6 1. Staff continues to review the Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 and Draft Small WCF Design Manual document (Preliminary Draft #2). There may be additional clarifications, proofreading corrections, and text revisions needed. These will be presented prior to final adoption. Note: For completed revisions see Preliminary Draft #3 City of Dover Small Wireless Communications Facility (Small WCF) Design Manual 11-2-2020. 2. The Planning Office provided an opportunity to Development Advisory Committee (DAC) members to comment on the proposed Text Amendments at their meeting on September 30, 2020. No negative comments were received only several advisory comments for clarifications. These comments will be evaluated, and appropriate document text revised as necessary. 3. The Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 is also subject to Legal Review by the City Solicitor and Special Legal Counsel which may identify additional clarifications or corrections. 4. Planning Staff in coordination with other City Departments will be developing the Application Review Processing Procedures. This includes development of an Application Checklist, associated WCF Permit Forms, and tracking procedures. The procedures will outline the process of intake and review among Departments. Planning Commission Review and Action Following the Staff Presentation and a Public Hearing on October 19, 2020 where three (3) members of the public spoke, the Planning Commission voted (8-0 of the members present) to recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment relating to Wireless Communications Facilities. Questions from the Planning Commission during consideration of the Text Amendment included the topics of stealth technologies, language, and constancy of wording for Small WCF in the Design Manual document. The public testimony noted the City’s forward thinking on this technology and its potential future demand and an appreciation of Staff’s diligent and collaborative work on the topic. See the included Excerpt of the Meeting Minutes of the October 19, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting.

CITY OF DOVER ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 APPLICATION: Text Amendment: Wireless Communications Facilities FILE #: MI-20-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Electric Department CONTACT PERSON: Paul Waddell, Electric Director CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7072 CONTACT PHONE #: pwaddell@dover.de.us T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed text amendments RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES ELECTRIC 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT ELECTRIC 1. None GENERAL 1. As DWW mentioned in their comments, requirements for marking should be clarified. 2. Section II, para 2; mentions installations above primary which we did not want to happen, reading secondary conductors would be acceptable. 3. Section III, para 1.b; please add only above secondary conductors. Installations above primary and transmission is not desired. 4. Section III, para 1.d; mentions 6-foot clearance above primary distribution wires. This should be secondary distribution wires. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 APPLICATION: Text Amendment: Wireless Communications Facilities FILE #: MI-20-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Department of Water & Wastewater CONTACT PERSON: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 CONTACT PHONE #: jlyon@dover.de.us T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. Our office has no objections to the proposed text amendments RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES WATER / WASTEWATER / GENERAL 1. None ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT WATER / WASTEWATER 1. None GENERAL 1. It is recommended that the text amendment includes the responsibility of underground utility markings. If a small cell wireless antenna is installed and has associated electrical / telecommunications wires buried underground, who will be responsible for marking the infrastructure. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

CITY OF DOVER CITY OF DOVER DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY Public Works STAFF D.A.C. MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 Department APPLICATION: Text Amendment: Wireless Communications Facilities FILE #: MI-20-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover Public Works Department CONTACT PERSON: Sharon J. Duca, P.E. CONTACT PHONE #: 302-736-7025 T HE S UBJECT P ROPOSAL HAS BEEN R EVIEWED FOR C ODE C OMPLIANCE , P LAN C ONFORMITY AND C OMPLETENESS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THIS A GENCY ’ S A UTHORITY AND A REA OF E XPERTISE . T HE F OLLOWING I TEMS HAVE BEEN I DENTIFIED AS E LEMENTS W HICH N EED TO BE A DDRESSED BY THE A PPLICANT : CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS STORMWATER 1. None. STREETS 1. The Department of Public Works has no objection to the proposed text amendment. SANITATION 1. None. GENERAL 1. None. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GENERAL 1. None. ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT STORMWATER / STREETS / SANITATION / GENERAL 1. None. I F Y OU H AVE A NY Q UESTIONS OR N EED TO D ISCUSS ANY OF THE A BOVE C OMMENTS , P LEASE C ALL THE A BOVE C ONTACT P ERSON AND THE P LANNING D EPARTMENT AS S OON AS P OSSIBLE .

C F MI-20-06 I I T R CITY OF DOVER Y E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE O M F A APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY R D.A.C. MEETING DATE: 09/30/20 D S O H V A E L R APPLICATION: Text Amendment Wireless Communications Facilities - FILE #: MI-20-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: City of Dover, Office of the Fire Marshal CONTACT PERSON: Jason Osika, Fire Marshal PHONE #: (302) 736-4457 THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY, AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY’S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT: CITY AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. This office has no comment currently APPLICABLE CODES LISTED BELOW (NOT LIMITED TO): 2015 NFPA 1 Fire Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2015 NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2013 NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA; National Fire Protection Association) 2009 IBC (International Building Code) Latest editions of all other NFPA Codes as defined by the Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations 2015 Delaware State Fire Prevention Regulations City of Dover Code of Ordinances *If you have any questions or need to discuss any of the above comments, please call the above contact person listed.

CITY OF DOVER D E DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTARY D O T =============================================================== APPLICATION: Wireless Communications Facilities FILE#: MI-20-06 REVIEWING AGENCY: DelDOT CONTACT PERSON: Joshua Schwartz PHONE#: 302-760-2768 =============================================================== THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PLAN CONFORMITY AND COMPLETENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ELEMENTS WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT: CITY & STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS: No person, firm, corporation or the like shall construct, open, reconstruct, maintain, modify or use any crossing or entrance onto a state-maintained highway, street or road, including any drainage modifications leading into or carried by the highway drainage system, without first having complied with standards and regulations adopted by the Department and having obtained a permit issued by the Department. Please contact the Delaware Department of Transportation - Development Coordination section to begin permit process. RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MEET CODE OBJECTIVES: ADVISORY COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT: 1. DelDOT has no comment on the text amendment.

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES OCTOBER 19, 2020 – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MI-20-06 TEXT AMENDMENT: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES - ORDINANCE #2020-13

PURPOSE  To establish uniform standards for the siting, design, permitting, installation, maintenance and use of Wireless Communication Facilities in the City of Dover.  Proposed Ordinance #2020-13  Draft Small Wireless Communications Facility Design Manual

TASKS SUMMARY  Topic worked on by Staff of City Manager’s Office, Electric Department, Planning Office, and Department of Public Works  City continues to utilize Cohen Law Group as subject matter/legal resource  City Manager’s Office (Assistant City Manager) serves as leader in coordination among City Departments, law firm, and industry representative inquiries  Updates to CCOW-Utility Committee on February 11, 2020, July 14, 2020, and September 15, 2020  Preliminary Comments and Process Questions from industry representatives  Planning Office continued work on refinement of a WCF Ordinance  Planning Office & Electric Department worked on refinement of SWCF Design Manual  Electric Department & City Manager’s Office working on Master Licensing Agreements for pole attachments and licensing (on City owned poles and rights-of-way)

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Small Wireless Communications Facility Non-Tower WCF Tower Based WCF

PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2020-13 (ORDINANCE FIRST READING 9-28-2020)  Development of Ordinance for adoption of regulations into Dover Code of Ordinances by creating new section Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 23 – Wireless Communications Facilities  Purpose  Definitions (also select Definitions added to Zoning Ordinance, Article 12)  Applicability  Type of Activity Determination:  Eligible Facilities Request  Substantial Change Activity  New Facility  Small WCF

PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2020-13 (ORDINANCE FIRST READING 9-28-2020)  Application Procedures: Location within Public Right-of-way, Eligible Facilities Request, Substantial Change Activity, New Facilities, New Small WCF  WCF Permit  Conditional Use Application (New Tower-Based WCF)  Regulations & Standards by Facility Type  Location  Development (Sizing, Height, Uses on Property, Placement, Setbacks, Accessory Equipment & Buildings, Fencing, Access, Lighting,)  Design Standards (Design Manual for SWCF, Visual Appearance)  General Requirements

PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2020-13 (ORDINANCE FIRST READING 9-28-2020)  Other Amendments to Zoning Ordinance  Article 3 Section 20B.1 and 20B.2  Uses in IPM3 Zone  Article 5 Section 21  Clarification of WCF versus Public Utility Infrastructure  Other Amendments to Dover Code of Ordinances  Chapter 98, Section 98-11 for Placement of WCF in Rights-of-way  Establish Use of Rights-of-way Permit & Annual Fee

PROPOSED ORDINANCE #2020-13 (ORDINANCE FIRST READING 9-28-2020)  Establishment of Fees for Wireless Communication Facility Activities:  Fee Structure is part of Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix F – Fee and Fines  Proposed Fees:  ROW Permit Fee and Annual Fee for Rights-of-Way Use  WCF Building Permits  Existing Fees:  Pole Attachment Fees for WCF  Conditional Use Permit Applications  Certain application fees are capped by Federal regulations.

PRELIMINARY DRAFT #2 CITY OF DOVER SMALL WCF DESIGN MANUAL (SWCF DESIGN MANUAL MARKUP 9-9-2020)  Development of a Small Wireless Communication Facility Design Manual  Definitions  General Standards  Antenna and Accessory Equipment Standards  Pole Standards  Review and Approval  Approval Timing

NEXT STEPS  Continue Formal Review Process of Ordinance  Introduction of Proposed Ordinance at CCOW – September 15, 2020  First Reading held at City Council – September 28, 2020  Public Hearing & Recommendation by Planning Commission – October 19, 2020  Public Hearing, Final Reading & Adoption of Ordinance by City Council – November 9, 2020  Continuing SWCF Design Manual Refinement Work  Coordination between WCF Ordinance & SWCF Design Manual  Publish final SWCF Design Manual document  Continuing Legal Review by City Solicitor and Special Legal Counsel

NEXT STEPS  Continued development and refinement of agreements and licensing associated with attachment on City owned poles and access to City right-of-way  Master Licensing Agreements with entities  Establish Application Review Processing Procedures  Development of Application Checklist and associated Permit Forms  Process of Intake and Review among Departments

EXAMPLES 14 Port t.nlster Anteon.a I SG Antenna I WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES

CITY OF DOVER PLANNING COMMISSION October 19, 2020 Excerpt from Meeting Minutes – Draft The City of Dover Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 19, 2020 at 6:00 PM as a Virtual Meeting using the phone/videoconferencing system WebEx due to Delaware’s Declaration of the State of Emergency for COVID-19. The Meeting Session was conducted with Chair Mrs. Maucher presiding. Members present were Mr. Adams, Mr. Roach, Mr. Hartman, Dr. Jones, Mrs. Welsh, Ms. Malone, and Mrs. Lord. Mr. Baldwin was absent. Staff members present were Mr. Dave Hugg, Mrs. Dawn Melson-Williams, Mr. Jason Lyon, Mr. Julian Swierczek, Mrs. Samantha Bulkilvish, and Mrs. Kristen Mullaney; and also Assistant City Manager Matt Harline. MI-20-06 Text Amendment: Wireless Communications Facilities - Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation to City Council of Text Amendments outlining provisions for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) by adding a new Article 5 Section 23. Wireless Communications Facilities to the Zoning Ordinance and completing other amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in Article 3 – District Regulations, Section 20B - Industrial Park and Manufacturing Zone – Industrial aviation and aeronautics center (IPM3); Article 5 Section 21 – Public utility infrastructure; and Article 12 – Definitions and to the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 98 – Street Sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Other Public Places and Appendix F – Fees and Fines. This proposed Ordinance provides definitions; establishes certain general and specific standards relating to the location, placement, construction and maintenance of Small WCF, Non-Tower Based WCF, and Tower-Based WCF; and provides for the regulations of WCF within the public rights-of-ways and outside public rights-of-way on properties. Also associated with these provisions is a Draft Small Wireless Communication Facility (SWCF) Design Manual. Ordinance #2020-13. A copy of the Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 is available on the City’s website www.cityofdover.com under the Government Heading: Ordinances, Resolutions & Tributes https://www.cityofdover.com/ordinances-and-resolutions The Draft SWCF Design Manual is available from the Planning Office. The Proposed Ordinance was presented to the Council Committee of the Whole - Utility Committee on September 15, 2020. First Reading was completed by the City Council on September 28, 2020 and the Public Hearing dates set for Planning Commission on October 19, 2020 and City Council on November 9, 2020. Representatives: None Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that this is a Text Amendment regarding wireless communications facilities. The purpose of this Text Amendment is to establish uniform standards for the siting design, permitting, installation, maintenance and use of Wireless Communication Facilities in the City of Dover. It really consists of two parts. First, is a proposed ordinance and that is Ordinance #2020-13 and then associated with that is a Draft of a Small Wireless Communications Facility Design Manual. Over the past year, various City staff and Departments have been involved in this project to develop these provisions, really lead by the City Manager’s Office. And we do have the Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 19, 2020 Page 1 of 7

Assistant City Manager, Matt Harline joining us at this meeting. The City’s Electric Department, the City’s Planning Office, and the Department of Public Works have also been involved. In addition, the City has made use of a specialized legal resource, the Cohen Law Group. A lawyer with them, Mr. Mike Roberts has been assisting Staff in the development of this Ordinance and some of the other provisions associated with wireless communications facilities. There have been a number of presentations to the City’s Utility Committee over the last year as they worked to develop this Ordinance and Design Manual. In addition, when we are talking about attaching things to City stuff, it requires a Master Licensing Agreement process and the City’s Electric Department has been very much involved on that side of the world. Our proposed Ordinance really sets up three types of wireless communications facilities and those types being Small Wireless Communications Facilities, Non-Tower Facilities and then Tower Based Facilities. Small Wireless Communications Facilities have a very specific definition that’s outlined at the Federal level that comes into play so we are adopting that as part of our Ordinance. They are typically small and less than 50 feet in height overall. There are some other dimensional limitations that are established by their definition. The next type of facility is a Non-Tower Facility and that is a communications facility that is located or co-located on something that is already there. This is where we see placement on buildings or on existing water towers or tanks that the City may have. They are types of utility poles, light poles and structures that are really there for something else but are having this communications facility element attached to them. The next type of facility is what we would call Tower Based Facilities and this is where the main purpose of the tower itself is to support the Wireless Communications Facility. This is where we see those purpose built things like the lattice towers or the monopole that the only thing it’s doing is for the Wireless Communications Facility placement on it. The Tower Based Communications Facilities are placed as the support structure for the communications facility itself. Our Proposed Ordinance had to have a number of components to it. The key part of the Proposed Ordinance will create a new section of Code in the Zoning Ordinance that would be Article 5, Section 23 that focuses very specifically on Wireless Communications Facilities. There is a purpose statement and there is a definitions section for a number of definitions that needed to be put in place to understand this technology and its terminology. There is a section on applicability and that section explains when this type of activity applies. In certain cases, they had to establish some exceptions so that it didn’t capture things like if someone still had a television antenna or some type of satellite dish on their property that they use for obtaining those types of services for their own personal use; basically, a non-commercial function. They also had to identify some things related to non-conforming uses with this. The next section of the Ordinance deals with the type of activity determination. With these types of facilities, at any given time there are a number of things that could be happening and we wanted to divide out the type of activity so that it identifies more clearly the type of process that it will need to move through or if it had special types of requirements for it. They see an Eligible Facilities Request as one type. An Eligible Facility is something that is already there and you are co-locating something new on it or you are changing out equipment that is already there because you’ve got a technology upgrade. Substantial Change Activity is actually defined in the Federal regulations as to what constitutes a substantial change but common sense is going to tell you that if it really changes the physical dimensions of what is there then it’s a Substantial Change. The next type is a New Facility meaning that whatever you are proposing wasn’t there previously and it’s going to be something new then it will have a certain type of review process because of that. Additionally, they had to pull out Small Wireless Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 19, 2020 Page 2 of 7

Communications Facilities. These types of facilities have very specialized Federal regulations associated with them related to their sizing, the placement of them and the timing for review so they were pulled out as a specialized type of activity. With the Ordinance, they had to establish application procedures. They are actually talking about placement of facilities both in the public right-of-way (or the property of the road) and also locations that may be on individual properties. That is spelled out for each type of activity. Basically, what you are dealing with is that there will be a type of Building Permit Application called a Wireless Communications Facility Permit that will have to be applied for. Depending on where you are locating, if you are locating within the right-of-way there are additional permits related to using the right-of-way. Where the Planning Commission ultimately plays a role is that for new Tower Based Wireless Communications Facilities, this process will require a review of a Conditional Use Application. The regulations and standards are given by each facility type. That actually outlines the details about location, the development parameters be it sizing, height, what else is happening on the property, things like setbacks, the details of if there are additional equipment or accessory buildings needed to support the facility, as well as any kind of fencing or access and lighting needs. Additionally, there are Design Standards that are established that focus on visual appearance based on the type of facility and in the case of the Small Wireless Communications Facility this is where we reference the Design Manual. The Design Manual goes into much greater detail of how Small Wireless Communications Facilities are supposed to be designed and placed. The Ordinance kind of wraps up with a series of general requirements and these focus on the maintenance and the care to ensure that once one is in place that it continues to function and is cared for appropriately. When doing the Ordinance, they had to take a look at other portions of the Zoning Ordinance to make sure that they weren’t creating any other conflicts and they discovered some cleanup measures that they needed to do. The first one is in the IPM-3 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) that focuses on industrial aviation and aeronautics. This is a new zone for us within the last couple of years. They currently do not have any properties with that zoning classification but we likely will in the future. What the Amendment to that section of the Code does is clearly makes these types of Wireless Communications Facilities a Conditional Use. In the case of the IPM-3 Zone, they are allowed but they are allowed in support of aviation, aeronautics and related operations. They also did some other cleanup in that section of the Code to identify things that were a Conditional Use in that section and then did some language clarification. Previously, the section on IPM-3 made reference to things like broadcasting towers and telecommunications towers so we are really updating terminology. The other section of the Zoning Ordinance that we needed to make improvements to is Article 5, Section 21. This is a clarification of Wireless Communications Facilities versus that section that specifically deals with Public Utility Infrastructure. They needed to make the distinction that those items meeting the definition of Wireless Communications Facilities are being dealt with in a different section of Code and this section under Article 5, Section 21 does not apply to them. Additionally, there were parts of the main part of the Dover Code of Ordinances that they had to establish some changes to with this proposed Ordinance. The first being in Chapter 98, which is the section of Dover Code that deals with streets, sidewalks, storm sewers and other public places. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 19, 2020 Page 3 of 7

By this Ordinance, proposing a new section, Section 98-11 that discusses the procedures for placement of a Wireless Communications Facility within the right-of-way. It establishes provisions for use of the rights-of-way and that focused on a permit process and also to establish an annual fee for use of what is the City rights-of-way. With this process, establishment of procedure also comes the need to establish fees for the types of activities. The fee structure or the City of Dover is found in Appendix F of the Code of Ordinances and other sections kind of point to this section for reference. There are several proposed fees the Ordinance looks to establish. Those are a Right-of-Way Permit fee. If you are going to be in a City right-of-way there is going to be a fee for us to review that and it also establishes Annual Fees for using the right-of-way. In certain cases, there would be no charge for use of the rights-of-way. In other cases, if you are placing a new structure or pole in the City right-of-way then there would be an annual fee that would be implemented upon your placement of the facility. There are a number of existing fees in the Code that are also noted here. Currently, there is a pole attachment fee; however, we are clarifying that the pole attachment fee for a wireless communications facility is something different and carries with it a different fee. There is also the application fee for our Conditional Use Permits that already exist in Code. It is important to note that a number of these applications fees, especially tied to the Small Wireless Communications Facilities are actually capped by Federal regulations so there is some limit as to what the City may charge in that regard. The second component of this is the “Small Wireless Communications Facility Design Manual” and it has a number of sections. Again, it’s definitions and general standards for both the facility as well as antennas and accessory equipment standards for poles. It also makes some reference to the review and approval process for it and the timing. She will say that the Design Manual is still considered in draft. There are a number of things in the Ordinance that they need to ensure that the Design Manual references appropriately so if there are any changes in what is adopted by Ordinance, there may need to be some revisions to the Design Manual. The Design Manual is referenced in the Ordinance and would be a policy document for the review and for the design of anything being submitted as a Small Wireless Communications Facility. Mr. Hugg actually worked on the initial drafts of this Design Manual; so, she is not sure if he has any comments about the logistics of the Design Manual that he would like to make. Mr. Hugg stated that the Design Manual will need to be carefully reviewed once the Ordinance is finalized so that they complement each other. He thinks that Mrs. Melson-Williams underestimated the amount of work that she and others have had to do over the last year. This is a complex area where we had very little guidance and very little precedent to go on. He thinks that they have worked their way down from he doesn’t know how many pages but he wants to compliment her and the rest of the City Staff who have been involved in this. The Design Manual is pretty much what it says it is. It gets to color, what is looks like, and whether it has to match other decorative poles and how far the arms can extend, and what the antennas look like to ensure that we get the best visual and performance standards that we can for the City of Dover. Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they are actively in the formal review process of the Ordinance. Its First Reading was held the last week of September 2020. Tonight is the Public Hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission. The Commission’s recommendation on the Ordinance will be forwarded on to City Council. City Council will need to conduct its own Public Hearing and do Final Reading of the Ordinance and take action to adopt the Ordinance. That is Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 19, 2020 Page 4 of 7

currently scheduled for November 9, 2020. As noted, the Design Manual is a work in progress. They are feeling pretty good at this point; however, they have to make sure that it plays nicely with the Ordinance once adopted. So there is still some work there to do to get to its final publication. With any Ordinance there is always legal review by the City Solicitor and in this case, we have Special Legal Counsel that’s been assisting us with this project. As a side portion to this, there is the development of agreements for use of City owned poles and access to the City right-of-way. This is done through a process called Master Licensing Agreements. The City has been working with two entities at this point on their individual Master Licensing Agreements. There is a Draft Master Licensing Agreement as a starting point and the City’s Electric and City Manager’s Office have been leading the charge with working with those entities to develop those. Of course with this and the new portions of Code, they have to formally put in place the Application Review Processing Procedures so that involves completion of permit forms. They need to create form that looks a little different than our normal Building Permit form so that we capture the information on the type of Wireless Communications Facility and their type of activity. We are also looking to do some type of application checklist so that they know what they need to submit in order to move through our review process in a timely fashion. Then also we need to set up that process of intake and review because this will involve more than just the Planning Office. The Electric Department and the Public Works Office will likely be involved in the review of a Wireless Communications Facility permit so we need to have the processes in place to do that. In case you don’t really know what these things look like, there are some examples that are being shown on the screen. A number of applications for Small Wireless Communications Facilities implementations include making them part of an existing light pole. The other ones do indicate the Tower Based option which is a large pole and an array of things at the top of it. The other two images are kind of the less conspicuous implementation of Wireless Communications Facilities often at the small level where there may just appear to be an extra box on a pole; be it a light pole or some type of utility pole. These provisions also have to deal with the fact that if you are placing your wireless communications facility on an electric service pole, there are some obvious separation distances and things that need to happen so that you and the transmission of electric to our other customers don’t have a problem. Mr. Hartman stated that the term “stealth technology” appears in the Design Manual and the Ordinance, is that a commonly used term in this industry? Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that she would say yes and it’s meant to be something that could be met in a number of different ways. When you think of stealth, it means you are hiding it in some way. So with our provisions, “stealth technologies” is actually defined. It is ways that you can go about camouflaging or screening the facility so that it blends in or is more visually appealing to the area where it is. Some of the examples that are there on the screen have been the choice of color and shape and form that allow it to blend into an existing light pole feature. It may be that the base is a little bit bigger than one that doesn’t have a wireless facility or it may have a slightly taller element to it so it’s really about a case by case basis looking at ways to have it visually blend into its context and its surrounding environment, whether that’s on a building or a light pole. The Design Manual does mention it also when it comes to the Small Wireless Communications Facilities. Mr. Hartman stated that he didn’t find it in the Design Manual. In the Design Manual, Section 2 Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 19, 2020 Page 5 of 7

Item 7, it talks about what you are describing but it does not say “stealth technologies”. “Stealth technologies” is defined in the Design Manual but then in the actual standards, he doesn’t believe that it’s mentioned again. If it’s an acceptable term in the industry, he has no problem with it. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mrs. Melson-Williams stated that they do have some industry people that are on the call this evening that she expects to hear from during the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Hartman stated that he understands that the Design Manual is a work in progress but one of the things that they are talking about in Section 2 Item 3, “all small wireless communications facilities shall be installed and maintained in a workmanlike manner in compliance with the National Electric Safety Code and the National Electric Code as applicable.” Is “workmanlike manner” actually needed in that sentence? It seems to do nothing but raise questions. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Hugg stated that it probably doesn’t add anything to that discussion. A lot of the language in the Design Manual is kind of industry standard. This is kind of a format driven product. He agrees with Mr. Hartman; he does not know what it adds so they can certainly remove it. Also, “stealth technologies” is a term that is used constantly in the industry as well. Mr. Hartman stated that in the Design Manual “small wireless facilities” is defined differently than how it’s defined in the Ordinance. Also in the Design Manual, you reference it three different ways. You reference it as a Small WCF which is actually referenced in the regulation and that’s the way that it should be termed. But you also term it SWCF and SCWF which is probably a typo but to be consistent, you should continue with what is in the Ordinance, Small WCF rather than switching back and forth. Responding to Mr. Hartman, Mr. Hugg stated that Mr. Hartman is correct and these are the kinds of things that they still need to work on in the Design Manual. Now that they have an agreement on what the Ordinance should look like and the wording of the Ordinance, those are good comments. Mrs. Maucher opened the public hearing. Mr. Nate Attard – 452 E Loockerman Street Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Attard stated that he just wanted to commend the City on working on this issue. He knows that it is one that the Commission may think is less than important but a change is coming with transportation and this is actually extremely important. As you guys hear about things like autonomous vehicles, you have to be aware that they actually connect to this type of technology. So it’s good that the City is sort of getting ahead of the game and making sure that the Code can sort of meet the demand that the City is going to face and try to permit these facilities in the future. Ms. Bonnie Metz – Verizon of Delaware Ms. Metz stated that she wants to thank the Staff. This is a process that she has been involved in with the Staff at the City for almost two years now since this started. They have really done a great and thorough job on the City’s behalf in coming to an Ordinance that is reasonable yet protects the City in aesthetic ways with the Design Manual. On behalf of Verizon, they look forward to working with the City and we move forward with their small cell technology in Dover and other places throughout the State. Mr. Joseph Divis - AT&T Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 19, 2020 Page 6 of 7

Mr. Divis stated that he wanted to reiterate what Ms. Metz stated on the behalf of AT&T. City Staff has worked diligently on this and should be commended and they will continue to collaborate through the process. Mrs. Maucher closed the public hearing. Mrs. Welsh moved to recommend approval to City Council for MI-20-06 Text Amendment: Wireless Communications Facilities, seconded by Mr. Hartman and the motion was carried 8-0 by roll call vote with Mr. Baldwin absent. Mrs. Welsh voting yes; this is a lot of indepth work by the Planning Office and it is something that is greatly needed in the future for the City. Dr. Jones voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Adams voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Roach voting yes; he wants to say thank you to Planning Staff for their detailed reports. Mrs. Malone voting yes; for reasons previously stated. Mr. Hartman voting yes; based on the package presented and the presentations tonight and he also wishes to thank the City for their hard work on this. Mrs. Lord voting yes; for reasons previously stated and she thinks the City of Dover will greatly benefit from forward thinking on wireless use for the City. Mrs. Maucher voting yes; for reasons previously stated and also adds her thanks to the Planning Staff for their hard work on this and also for welcoming in the industry representatives in to make sure that this a comprehensive ordinance that is workable for everyone. Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting of October 19, 2020 Page 7 of 7

FINAL READING CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE #2020-13 1 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN 2 COUNCIL MET: 3 4 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations of the Dover Code, be 5 amended by inserting a new Section 23 – Wireless Communications Facilities, as follows: 6 7 Section 23. Wireless Communications Facilities 8 9 23.1 Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to establish uniform standards for the siting, 10 design, permitting, construction, maintenance, and use of wireless communications facilities 11 (WCF) in the City of Dover (referred to herein as the “City”). While the City recognizes the 12 importance of wireless communications facilities in providing high quality communications 13 service to its residents, the City also recognizes that it has an obligation to protect public safety 14 and to minimize the adverse effects of such facilities through the standards set forth in the 15 following provisions and as referenced. 16 17 23.11 By enacting these provisions, the City intends to: 18 19 (a) Promote the deployment of wireless communications facilities in the City while 20 regulating their location and number to ensure the provision of necessary services; 21 22 (b) Provide for the managed development of wireless communications facilities in a 23 manner that enhances the benefits of wireless communication and accommodates the 24 needs of both City residents and wireless carriers in accordance with federal and state 25 laws and regulations; 26 27 (c) Address new wireless technologies, including but not limited to, distributed antenna 28 systems, data collection units, small cells, cable Wi-Fi and other wireless 29 communications facilities; 30 31 (d) Establish procedures for the design, siting, construction, installation, maintenance and 32 removal of small wireless communications facilities, non-tower based wireless 33 communications facilities, and tower-based wireless communications facilities, in the 34 City, including facilities both inside and outside the public rights-of-way; 35 36 (e) Preserve the character of the City’s neighborhoods and corridors; 37 38 (f) Minimize the adverse visual effects and the number of such facilities through proper 39 design, siting, screening, material, color and finish and by requiring that competing 40 providers of wireless communications services collocate their commercial 41 communications antennas and related facilities on existing wireless support structures 42 where feasible; 43 44 (g) Promote the health, safety and welfare of the City's residents. 45

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 2 46 23.2 Definitions. 47 48 Accessory Equipment. Any equipment serving or being used in conjunction with a wireless 49 communications facility or wireless support structure. The term “Accessory Equipment” 50 includes but is not limited to utility or transmission equipment, power supplies, generators, 51 batteries, cables, equipment buildings, cabinets and storage sheds, shelters or similar 52 structures. 53 54 Antenna. An apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to 55 be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Federal Communications 56 Commission authorization, for the provision of wireless service and any commingled 57 information services. 58 59 Changes in height. Changes in height is measured from the original wireless support structure 60 in cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on buildings' 61 rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height should be measured from the dimensions 62 of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any 63 modifications that were approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act (47 CFR 64 §1.4001(b)(7)(i)(A)). 65 66 Collocation. The mounting of one or more WCFs, including antennae, on a pre-existing 67 structure, or modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing a WCF on that 68 structure. 69 70 Eligible Facilities Request. Any request for modification of an existing WCF that does not 71 constitute a substantial change. Such request may involve: (i) collocation of new transmission 72 equipment; (ii) removal of transmission equipment; or (iii) replacement of transmission 73 equipment. 74 75 Emergency. A condition that (1) constitutes a clear and immediate danger to the health, 76 welfare, or safety of the public, or (2) has caused or is likely to cause facilities in the rights-of- 77 way to be unusable and result in loss of the services provided. 78 79 Equipment Compound. An area surrounding or adjacent to a wireless support structure within 80 which base stations, power supplies, or accessory equipment are located. 81 82 FCC. Federal Communications Commission. 83 84 Height of a Tower-Based WCF. The vertical distance measured from the ground level, 85 including any base pad, to the highest point on a tower-based WCF, including antennae 86 mounted on the tower and any other appurtenances. 87 88 Modification or Modify. The improvement, upgrade or expansion of existing wireless 89 communications facilities or base stations on an existing wireless support structure or the 90 improvement, upgrade, or expansion of the wireless communications facilities located within 91 an existing equipment compound, if the improvement, upgrade, expansion or replacement does 92 not substantially change the physical dimensions of the wireless support structure. 93

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 3 94 Non-Tower Wireless Communications Facility (Non-Tower WCF). A wireless 95 communications facility located or collocated on existing structures, such as, but not limited 96 to buildings, water towers, electrical transmission towers, utility poles, light poles, traffic 97 signal poles, flag poles and other similar structures that do not require the installation of a new 98 tower. This term includes the replacement of an existing structure with a similar structure that 99 is required to support the weight of the proposed WCF. This definition excludes any 100 installation constituting a Small Wireless Communications Facility. 101 102 Person. Individuals, corporations, companies, associations, joint stock companies, firms, 103 partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations and other entities established pursuant 104 to statutes of the State of Delaware, provided that “Person” does not include or apply to the 105 City, or to any department or agency of the City. 106 107 Replacement. The replacement of existing wireless communications facilities on an existing 108 wireless support structure or within an existing equipment compound due to maintenance, 109 repair or technological advancement with equipment that does not result in increased wind or 110 structural loading, is substantially similar in size and weight as the wireless communications 111 facilities initially installed, and that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of 112 the existing wireless support structure. 113 114 Small Wireless Communications Facility (Small WCF). A wireless communications facility 115 that meets the following criteria: 116 (1) The structure on which antenna facilities are mounted 117 a) is 50 feet or less in height, or 118 b) is no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or 119 c) is not extended to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent above 120 its preexisting height as a result of the collocation of new antenna facilities; and 121 (2) Each antenna associated with the deployment (excluding the associated equipment) is 122 no more than three cubic feet in volume; and 123 (3) All antenna equipment associated with the facility (excluding antennas) are 124 cumulatively no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; and 125 (4) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under 47 CFR Part 17; and 126 (5) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR §800.16(x); 127 and 128 (6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of 129 the applicable safety standards specified in 47 CFR §1.1307(b). 130 131 Stealth Technology. Camouflaging or screening methods applied to wireless communications 132 facilities and accessory equipment which render them more visually appealing or blend the 133 proposed facility into the existing structure or visual backdrop in a manner appropriate to the 134 site’s context and surrounding environment. Such methods include, but are not limited to, 135 architecturally screened roof-mounted antennae, building-mounted antennae painted to match 136 the existing structure and facilities constructed to resemble trees, shrubs, and light poles. 137 138 Substantial Change. A modification to an existing WCF substantially changes the physical 139 dimensions of a wireless support structure if it meets any of the criteria set forth in 47 CFR 140 §1.6100, as amended. 141

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 4 142 143 Tower-Based Wireless Communications Facility (Tower-Based WCF). Any structure that is 144 used for the primary purpose of supporting one or more antennae, including, but not limited 145 to, self-supporting lattice towers, guy towers and monopoles. This definition excludes any 146 installation meeting the definition of a Small Wireless Communications Facility. 147 148 Wireless. Transmissions through the airwaves including, but not limited to, infrared line of 149 sight, cellular, PCS, microwave, satellite, or radio signals. 150 151 Wireless Communications Facility (WCF). An antenna facility or a wireless support structure 152 that is used for the provision of wireless service, whether such service is provided on a stand- 153 alone basis or commingled with other wireless communications services. 154 155 Wireless Communications Facility Applicant (WCF Applicant). Any person that applies for a 156 wireless communications facility building permit, zoning/conditional use approval, and/or 157 permission to use the public right-of-way or other City owned land or property. 158 159 Wireless Support Structure. A freestanding structure, pole, tower, or other building, whether 160 or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is used or to be used to support the placement or 161 installation of a wireless communication facility for the provision of wireless service 162 (whether on its own or comingled with other types of services). 163 164 23.3 Applicability. The terms and provisions of this section shall apply to wireless communication 165 facilities in the City. As defined, each type of WCF has specific allowable locations, development 166 regulations, and design standards as follows: 167 168 (a) Small WCF described in Article 5, Section 23.6. 169 (b) Non-Tower WCF described in Article 5, Section 23.7. 170 (c) Tower WCF described in Article 5, Section 23.8. 171 172 23.31Exceptions. The activities by City residents to utilize satellite dishes, citizen and/or band 173 radios, and Antennae for the purpose of maintaining television, phone, and/or internet 174 connections at their residences for non-commercial activity shall be exempt from the 175 regulations enumerated in this Section 23. 176 177 23.32 Nonconforming Uses. The following provisions shall apply to all buildings, support 178 structures, and uses as related to wireless communication facilities: 179 180 (a) All types of WCFs shall be permitted to collocate upon existing non-conforming 181 WCFs, wireless support structures, and other non-conforming structures subject to 182 the provisions of this Section 23. 183 (b) Collocation of Antennae is permitted on non-conforming structures. 184 (c) Collocation of Non-Tower WCFs upon existing Tower-Based WCFs is encouraged 185 even if the Tower-Based WCF is non-conforming as to use within a zoning district. 186 (d) WCF which are hereafter damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause may be 187 repaired and restored at their former location but must otherwise comply with the 188 terms and conditions of this Section 23. 189

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 5 190 23.4 Type of Activity Determination. The following provisions outline the types of wireless 191 communication facility applications. 192 193 23.41 Eligible Facilities Request. The WCF Application Type is classified as an Eligible 194 Facilities Request if the request for modification of an existing WCF that does not 195 constitute a Substantial Change under 47 CFR §1.6100, as amended. The request may 196 involve: (i) collocation of new transmission equipment; (ii) removal of transmission 197 equipment; or (iii) replacement of transmission equipment. 198 199 23.42 Substantial Change Activity. The WCF Application Type is classified as a Substantial 200 Change Activity if the modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of a 201 wireless support structure by meeting any of the criteria set forth in 47 CFR §1.6100, as 202 amended, relating to height of the support structure or addition of new appurtenances or 203 equipment cabinets. 204 205 23.43 New Facility. The WCF Application Type is classified as a New Facility if it involves 206 the construction and placement of a new wireless support structure and does not meet 207 the definition of Small WCF. 208 209 23.44 Small WCF. The WCF Application Type is classified as a Small WCF if the proposed 210 antennas, accessory equipment and support structure (whether an existing, replacement 211 or new structure) comply with the volume and height parameters set forth in the 212 definition of Small WCF. 213 214 23.5 Application Procedures. The following provisions outline the procedures for wireless 215 communication facility applications. Policies and procedures for the administration of the WCF 216 permitting and review process shall be developed by the City Manager and City Planner. 217 218 23.51 Location within Public Right-of-way. WCF Applicants proposing a WCF to be located 219 within the public right-of-way, shall be required to obtain application approvals as 220 follows: 221 222 (a) Pole Attachment Process. Compliance with the procedures found in Dover Code 223 Ordinances, Chapter 110 – Utilities, Section 110-32 Pole Attachment, for a WCF 224 proposed for attachment to Dover Electric Department facilities. 225 (b) Master license agreement required. Any WCF Applicant for a WCF proposed for 226 attachment to a utility pole owned or controlled by the City of Dover Electric 227 Department shall first enter into a valid Master License Agreement with the City 228 authorizing such attachment. No WCF shall be permitted to be attached to such 229 utility poles without proof a valid Master License Agreement being provided as 230 part of the permit application. 231 (c) Permit – Use of Rights-of-Way. Obtain a Right-of-Way Use Permit from the City 232 in accordance with permit policies and procedures pursuant to Dover Code of 233 Ordinances, Chapter 98 – Streets, Sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Other Public 234 Spaces, for a WCF proposed with City rights-of-way. 235 (d) Permit. Obtain a WCF Building Permit from the City in accordance with applicable 236 permit policies and procedures pursuant to Appendix B, Article 8, Section 1 – 237 Building Permit of the City of Dover Code.

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 6 238 (e) Documentation. WCF application shall also be accompanied by documentation 239 demonstrating that the proposed WCF complies with all applicable provisions of 240 this Section 23 for the type of WCF. 241 (f) Fee. Each application to be approved under this section shall be accompanied by 242 fees as provided for in Appendix F – Fees and Fines. 243 244 23.52 Compliance with Zoning Ordinance. The following section of the zoning ordinance shall 245 be adhered to, as applicable, in the approval of a WCF application: 246 247 (a) Architectural Review Certificate. WCF located within the Historic District (H) shall 248 be required to obtain an Architectural Review Certificate pursuant to Article 3, 249 Section 21 and Article 10, Section 3 of this ordinance. 250 (b) Airport environs. Locations within the Airport Environs Overlay Zone (AEOZ) 251 shall document compliance pursuant to Article 3, Section 22 of this ordinance. 252 (c) Environmentally sensitive areas. Location shall document compliance with the 253 environmental protection measures for flood hazard areas and waterbodies and 254 wetlands pursuant to Article 5, Section 11 of this ordinance. 255 256 23.53 Eligible Facilities Request. WCF Applicants proposing an Eligible Facilities Request 257 shall be required to obtain application approvals as follows: 258 259 (a) Type. WCF Applicant shall designate in writing that the application constitutes an 260 Eligible Facilities Request pursuant to 47 CFR §1.6100 and as defined by this 261 Section 23. 262 (b) Permit. Obtain a WCF Building Permit from the City in accordance with applicable 263 permit policies and procedures pursuant to Appendix B, Article 8, Section 1 – 264 Building Permit of the City of Dover Code. 265 (c) Documentation. WCF application shall also be accompanied by documentation 266 demonstrating that the proposed WCF complies with all applicable provisions of 267 this Section 23 for the type of WCF. 268 (d) Fee. Each application to be approved under this section shall be accompanied by 269 fees as provided for in Appendix F – Fees and Fines. 270 271 23.54 Substantial Change Activity. WCF Applicants proposing a Substantial Change Activity 272 shall be required to obtain application approvals as follows: 273 274 (a) Type. WCF Applicant shall designate in writing that the application constitutes a 275 Substantial Change Activity as defined by this Section 23. 276 (b) Permit. Obtain a WCF Building Permit from the City in accordance with applicable 277 permit policies and procedures pursuant to Appendix B, Article 8, Section 1 – 278 Building Permit of the City of Dover Code. 279 (c) Documentation. WCF application shall also be accompanied by documentation 280 demonstrating that the proposed WCF complies with all applicable provisions of 281 this Section 23 based on the type of facility. 282 (d) Fee. Each application to be approved under this section shall be accompanied by 283 fees as provided for in Appendix F – Fees and Fines. 284

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 7 285 23.55 New Facilities. WCF Applicants proposing a New Facility located in a public right-of- 286 way shall be subject to the provisions of Section 23.51. WCF Applicants proposing a 287 New Facility meeting the definition of Tower-Based WCF outside of a public right-of- 288 way of shall be required to obtain application approvals as follows: 289 290 (a) Conditional use authorization required. Any WCF Applicant proposing the 291 construction of a new facility shall first obtain conditional use authorization 292 pursuant to Appendix B, Article 10 Section 1 of the Dover Code. 293 (b) Documentation. The conditional use application shall demonstrate that the 294 proposed WCF complies with all applicable provisions of Section 23 based on the 295 type of facility. 296 (c) Conditional use application requirements. The additional requirements for 297 conditional use applications shall include the following: 298 i. A description of the type and manufacturer of the proposed 299 transmission/radio equipment, the power in watts at which the WCF 300 Applicant transmits, and any relevant related tests conducted by the WCF 301 Applicant in determining the need for the proposed site and installation. 302 ii. Documentation demonstrating that the proposed Tower-Based WCF 303 complies with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations 304 concerning aviation safety. 305 iii. Evidence that the owner of the property on which the Tower-Based WCF 306 is proposed has granted authorization to construct and operate the Tower- 307 Based WCF. 308 iv. Written certification from a structural engineer licensed in the State of 309 Delaware that the proposed WCF’s ability to meet the structural standards 310 offered by either the Electronic Industries Association or the 311 Telecommunication Industry Association and certify the proper 312 construction of the foundation and the erection of the structure. 313 v. An application for a new Tower-Based WCF shall demonstrate that the 314 proposed Tower-Based WCF cannot be accommodated on an existing or 315 approved structure or building. The Planning Commission may deny an 316 application to construct a new Tower-Based WCF if the WCF Applicant 317 has not made a good faith effort to mount the Antenna(s) on an existing 318 structure. The WCF Applicant shall address the viability of any existing 319 Wireless Support Structures within a one quarter (1/4) mile radius of the 320 site proposed and demonstrate that such alternative candidates are inferior 321 with respect to technical feasibility, cost, or terms of use. 322 (b) Permit. Obtain a WCF Building Permit from the City in accordance with applicable 323 permit policies and procedures pursuant to Appendix B, Article 8, Section 1 – 324 Building Permit of the City of Dover Code. 325 (c) Documentation. WCF application shall also be accompanied by documentation 326 demonstrating that the proposed WCF complies with all applicable provisions of 327 this Section 23 based on the type of WCF. 328 (d) Fee. Each application to be approved under this section shall be accompanied by 329 fees as provided for in Appendix F – Fees and Fines. 330 331 23.56 New Small WCF. WCF Applicants proposing a new Small WCF that does not qualify as 332 an Eligible Facilities Request shall be required to obtain application approval as follows:

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 8 333 334 (a) Type. WCF Applicant shall designate in writing that the application constitutes a 335 Small WCF as defined by this Section 23. 336 (b) Permit. Obtain a WCF Building Permit from the City in accordance with applicable 337 permit policies and procedures pursuant to Appendix B, Article 8, Section 1 – 338 Building Permit of the City of Dover Code. 339 (c) Documentation. WCF application shall also be accompanied by documentation 340 demonstrating that the proposed WCF complies with all applicable provisions of 341 this Section 23 based on the type of facility. 342 (d) Fee. Each application to be approved under this section shall be accompanied by 343 fees as provided for in Appendix F – Fees and Fines. 344 (e) New Wireless Support Structures. An application involving installation of a new 345 Wireless Support Structure shall demonstrate that the proposed Small WCF cannot 346 be reasonably accommodated on an existing or approved structure or building 347 within the right-of-way. The WCF Applicant shall address the viability of any 348 existing Wireless Support Structures within 100 feet of the site proposed and 349 demonstrate that such alternative candidates are inferior with respect to technical 350 feasibility, cost, or terms of use. 351 352 23.57 Timing of Approvals. Each specific type of WCF is subject to specific approval 353 timeframes. Such timeframes shall be subject to the tolling procedures established by the 354 FCC. 355 356 (a) Small WCF: Timing of Approval for all Small WCF facilities that do not meet the 357 definition of Eligible Facilities Request. Once a WCF application is submitted 358 these are the approval time lines: 359 i. Notification of Incomplete Applications for Small WCF. Within ten (10) 360 days of receipt of an application for a Small WCF, the City shall notify the 361 WCF Applicant in writing of any additional information required to 362 complete application. 363 ii. Approval Timeframe – Collocation. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of an 364 application for a collocation of a Small WCF on a preexisting Wireless 365 Support Structure, the City shall make a final decision on whether to 366 approve the application and the City shall notify the WCF Applicant in 367 writing of such decision. 368 iii. Approval Timeframe – New Facility. Within ninety (90) days of receipt of 369 an application for a Small WCF requiring the installation of a new Wireless 370 Support Structure, the City Planning Department shall make a final decision 371 on whether to approve the application and shall notify the WCF Applicant 372 in writing of such decision. 373 374 (b) Non-Tower WCF: Timing of Approval for all Non-Tower WCF facilities that do 375 not meet the definition of Eligible Facilities Request. Once a WCF application is 376 submitted these are the approval time lines: 377 i. Notification of Incomplete Applications for Non-Tower WCF. Within thirty 378 (30) days of receipt of an application for a WCF on a preexisting wireless 379 support structure, the City shall notify the WCF Applicant in writing of any 380 additional information required to complete application.

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 9 381 ii. Approval Timeframe – Substantial Change. Within ninety (90) days of 382 receipt of an application for a Non-Tower WCF on a preexisting Wireless 383 Support Structure that Substantially Changes the Wireless Support 384 Structure to which it is attached, the City shall make a final decision on 385 whether to approve the application and the City shall notify the WCF 386 Applicant in writing of such decision. 387 iii. Approval Timeframe – Not Substantial Change. Within sixty (60) days of 388 receipt of an application for a Non-Tower WCF on a preexisting Wireless 389 Support Structure that does not Substantially Change the Wireless Support 390 Structure to which it is attached, the City Planning Department shall issue 391 the required building permit authorizing construction of WCF. 392 393 (c) Tower-Based WCF: Timing of Approval for all Tower-Based WCF facilities that 394 do not meet the definition of Eligible Facilities Request. Once a WCF application 395 is submitted these are the approval time lines: 396 i. Notification of Incomplete Applications for Tower-Based WCF. Within 397 thirty (30) days of receipt of an application for a Tower-Based WCF, the 398 City shall notify the WCF Applicant in writing of any additional 399 information required to complete application. 400 ii. Approval Timeframe - All applications for Tower-Based WCFs shall be 401 acted upon within one hundred fifty (150) days of the receipt of a fully 402 completed application for the approval of such Tower-Based WCF and 403 the City shall advise the WCF Applicant in writing of its decision. If 404 additional information was requested by the City Planning Department to 405 complete an application, the time required by the WCF Applicant to 406 provide the information shall not be counted toward the one hundred fifty 407 (150) day review period 408 409 23.58 Fees. Each application for permit or plan approval shall be accompanied by a fee as provided 410 for in Appendix F – Fees and Fines. 411 412 (a) Permit fees. The City may assess appropriate and reasonable permit fees directly related 413 to the City’s actual costs in reviewing and processing the application for approval of a 414 WCF, as well as related inspection, monitoring and related costs. Such permit fees 415 shall be established by Appendix F – Fees and Fines and shall comply with the 416 applicable requirements of the FCC. 417 418 (b) Reimbursement for WCF in Right-of-way. In addition to permit fees as described in 419 this section, every Small WCF in the right-of-way is subject to the City’s right to 420 recover its actual costs incurred as a result of the Small WCF’s presence in the right- 421 of-way, including, but not limited to, the costs of the administration and performance 422 of all reviewing, inspecting, permitting, supervising and other right-of-way 423 management activities by the City. The owner of each Small WCF shall reimburse the 424 City for the City’s costs reasonably incurred in connection with the activities described 425 above. All fees shall comply with applicable state and federal law and not exceed 426 amounts presumed reasonable by the FCC. 427

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 10 428 23.6 Small Wireless Communication Facilities (Small WCF). The following regulations shall 429 apply to all Small WCF and associated Wireless Support Structures as defined by this Section 23. 430 431 (a) Location. 432 i. Small WCF are permitted to be located in all City zoning districts subject to 433 the application requirements of this Section 23. 434 ii. Small WCF are subject to compliance with Zoning Ordinance provisions 435 outlined in Section 23.52. 436 iii. Small WCF are permitted to be located within the public right-of-way subject 437 to application requirements of this Section 23. 438 439 (b) Development Regulations. 440 i. Sizing. To be considered as Small WCF, the WCF must comply with the criteria 441 established in the definition of Small Wireless Communications Facility in 442 Section 23.2. 443 ii. Height. The total height of a Small WCF shall comply with the maximum height 444 permitted in the zoning district of the property to the extent technically feasible. 445 In accordance with industry standards, Small WCF Applicants must submit 446 documentation to the City justifying the total height of the WCF. 447 iii. Height. The total height of a Small WCF when located in the public right-of- 448 way shall be no more than ten percent taller than the tallest existing utility pole 449 or wireless support structure within a two hundred fifty (250) radius of the 450 proposed WCF or fifty (50) feet above ground level, whichever is greater. 451 iv. Placement. All Small WCF shall comply with the applicable requirements of 452 the Americans with Disabilities Act and all applicable requirements pertaining 453 to streets and sidewalks, as codified in Chapter 98 of the Dover Code. 454 v. Placement. Small WCF in the public right-of-way requiring the installation of 455 a new Wireless Support Structure shall not be located directly in front of any 456 building entrance or exit such that it would interfere with ingress or egress. 457 vi. Accessory equipment. Small WCF and Accessory Equipment shall be located 458 so as not to cause any physical or visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular 459 traffic, create safety hazards to pedestrians and/or motorists, or to otherwise 460 inconvenience public use of the ROW as determined by the City. 461 462 (c) Design standards. All Small WCF shall be designed to meet applicable requirements 463 of the City “Small Wireless Communications Facility Design Manual,” a copy of which 464 is kept on file at the City Planning Department. 465 466 23.7 Non-Tower Wireless Communication Facilities (Non-Tower WCF). The following 467 regulations shall apply to all Non-Tower WCFs as defined by this Section 23 and that do not meet 468 the definition of a Small WCF. 469 470 (a) Location. 471 i. Non-Tower WCF are permitted to locate in all City zoning districts subject to 472 the application requirements of this Section 23. 473 ii. Non-Tower WCF are subject to compliance with Zoning Ordinance provisions 474 outlined in Section 23.52.

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 11 475 iii. Non-Tower WCF are permitted to be located within the public right-of-way 476 subject to application requirements of this Section 23. 477 iv. Non-Tower WCF shall be collocated on existing wireless support structures, 478 such as poles, certain existing buildings or Tower-Based WCF. 479 v. Historic buildings. Non-Tower WCF may be located within one hundred (100) 480 feet of any property, or on a building or structure that is listed on the National 481 Register of Historic Places if an approved Architectural Review Certification is 482 obtained pursuant to Article 10, Section 3 of this ordinance. 483 484 (b) Prohibitions on certain structures. Non-Tower WCF shall not be located on one- 485 family detached dwellings, one-family attached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, 486 duplexes, townhouses, manufactured homes, mobile homes, modular homes, or any 487 residential accessory structure. 488 489 (c) Development Regulations. 490 i. Sizing. To be considered as Non-Tower WCF, the WCF must comply with the 491 criteria established in the definition of Non-Tower Wireless Communications 492 Facility in Section 23.2. 493 ii. Height. The total height of a Non-Tower WCF shall not exceed the maximum 494 height permitted in the zoning district. In accordance with industry standards, 495 Non-Tower WCF Applicants must submit documentation to the City justifying 496 the total height of the WCF. 497 iii. Replacement of Existing Support Structure. The replacement of an existing 498 support structure with a similar structure that is required to support the weight 499 of the proposed WCF is allowed. 500 iv. Accessory Equipment Buildings. If Accessory Equipment is to be located in a 501 separate building, the building shall comply with the minimum requirements 502 for accessory structure in the applicable zoning district. 503 v. Fences. A security fence with a minimum height of six (6) feet and a maximum 504 height of eight (8) feet shall surround any separate equipment compound 505 located outside the right-of-way. 506 vi. Access. Vehicular access to the accessory equipment building or equipment 507 compound shall not interfere with the parking or vehicular circulations on the 508 site for the principal use. 509 510 (d) Design Standards. Where appropriate, Non-Tower WCF shall employ Stealth 511 Technology and be treated to match the Wireless Support Structure in order to 512 minimize aesthetic impact. The Stealth Technology utilized by the WCF Applicant 513 shall be subject to the application approval process. 514 515 23.8 Tower-Based Wireless Communication Facilities (Tower-Based WCF). The following 516 regulations shall apply to all Tower-Based WCFs as defined by this Section 23 and that do not 517 meet the definition of a Small WCF. 518 519 (a) Conditional uses. Tower-Based WCF are permitted outside the public Rights-of-Way 520 in certain zoning districts upon conditional use approval of the Planning Commission 521 in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general conditions set forth in 522 Article 10 Section 1 of this ordinance.

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 12 523 i. In approving the conditional use, the Planning Commission may take into 524 consideration the following: 525 a. the aesthetic impact of the proposed facility, including but not 526 limited to whether its decision upon the subject application will 527 promote the harmonious and orderly development of the zoning 528 district involved; 529 b. encourage compatibility with the character and type of development 530 existing in the area; 531 c. prevent a negative impact on the aesthetic character of the 532 community; 533 d. preserve woodlands and trees existing at the site to the greatest 534 possible extent; and 535 e. encourage sound engineering and land development design and 536 construction principles, practices and techniques. 537 ii. Additional antennae. As a condition of approval for all Tower-Based WCF, 538 the WCF Applicant shall provide with a written commitment that it will 539 allow a minimum of two (2) other service providers the opportunity to 540 Collocate Antennae on Tower-Based WCF where technically feasible. 541 542 (b) Location. 543 i. Tower-Based WCF are conditionally permitted to locate in the nonresidential 544 zones. Nonresidential zones are defined in Article 12 – Definitions of this 545 ordinance. 546 ii. Exception. Tower-Based WCF in the IPM3 (Industrial Park Manufacturing 547 Zone – Industrial Aviation and Aeronautics Center) zoning district are only 548 allowed in support of aviation, aeronautics, or related operation per Article 3, 549 Section 20B of the ordinance. 550 iii. Tower-Based WCF are subject to the application requirements of this Section 551 23. 552 iv. Tower-Based WCF are subject to compliance with zoning ordinance provisions 553 outlined in Section 23.52. 554 v. Historic places. Tower-Based WCF may be located within one hundred (100) 555 feet of any building or structure that is listed on the National Register of Historic 556 Places if an approved Architectural Review Certification is obtained pursuant 557 to Article 10, Section 3 of this ordinance. 558 559 (c) Uses on Property. 560 i. Principal use. A Tower-Based WCF shall be permitted as a sole principal use 561 on a lot. 562 ii. Combined with another use. A Tower-Based WCF may be permitted on a 563 property with an existing use, or on a vacant parcel in combination with another 564 permitted use. 565 iii. Existing uses. The existing use on the property may be any permitted use in the 566 applicable zoning district and need not be affiliated with the WCF. 567 iv. Ability to use. Where applicable, the WCF owner shall present documentation 568 that the property owner has granted an easement or other property right for the 569 proposed facility. 570

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 13 571 (d) Development Regulations. 572 i. Minimum lot area. The minimum lot area shall comply with the requirements 573 for the applicable zoning district and shall be the area needed to accommodate 574 the Tower-Based WCF and guy wires, the equipment building, security fence, 575 and buffer planting. 576 ii. Height. Tower-Based WCFs shall be designed and kept at the minimum 577 functional height. The maximum total height of a Tower-Based WCF shall not 578 exceed the one hundred fifty (150) feet. No WCF Applicant shall have the right 579 under these regulations to erect a tower to the maximum height specified in this 580 section unless it proves the necessity for such height. 581 iii. Minimum setbacks. The minimum distance between the base of a Tower-Based 582 WCF and any property line or street Right-of-Way line shall equal 110% of the 583 proposed height of the Tower-Based WCF, unless the WCF Applicant shows 584 to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that the proposed Tower-Based 585 WCF has been designed in such a manner that a lesser setback will have no 586 negative effects on public safety. 587 588 (e) Design Standards. 589 i. Multiple Antennae. Any proposed Tower-Based WCF shall be designed 590 structurally to accommodate both the WCF Applicant's Antennae and at least 591 two (2) comparable Antennae for future users. 592 ii. Security. Any Tower-Based WCF shall be equipped with an anti-climbing 593 device, as approved by the manufacturer. 594 iii. Lighting. No Tower-Based WCF shall be artificially lighted, except as required 595 by law. If lighting is required, the WCF Applicant shall provide a detailed plan 596 for sufficient lighting, demonstrating as unobtrusive and inoffensive an effect 597 as is permissible under state and federal regulations. 598 iv. Surrounding environs. Existing vegetation, trees and shrubs located within 599 proximity to the Tower-Based WCF structure shall be preserved to the 600 maximum extent possible. 601 v. Fences. A security fence having a minimum height of six (6) feet and a 602 maximum height of eight (8) feet shall surround any Tower-Based WCF, as 603 well as guy wires, equipment compound or housing WCF equipment. 604 vi. Screening. A screen of evergreen trees planted eight (8) feet on center, each at 605 least four (4) feet in height, shall surround the Tower-Based WCF and security 606 fence. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible 607 and landscaping is not required where landscaping already exists 608 vii. Accessory equipment. Where feasible, Accessory Equipment associated, or 609 connected, with a Tower-Based WCF shall be placed underground. Any above- 610 ground Accessory Equipment associated or connected with a Tower-Based 611 WCF shall be screened from public view using Stealth Technology. All 612 ground-mounted Accessory Equipment, utility buildings and accessory 613 structures shall be architecturally designed to blend into the environment in 614 which they are situated. 615 viii. Accessory equipment buildings. If Accessory Equipment is to be located in a 616 separate building, the building shall comply with the minimum requirements 617 for accessory structures in the applicable zoning district.

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 14 618 ix. Accessory equipment. Accessory Equipment not exceeding five hundred (500) 619 square feet in area shall be permitted for each unrelated company sharing space 620 on the Tower-Based WCF. 621 x. Access road. Where necessary, an access road, turnaround space and parking 622 shall be provided to ensure adequate Emergency and service access to Tower- 623 Based WCF. Maximum use of existing roads, whether public or private, shall 624 be made to the extent practicable. Road grades shall closely follow natural 625 contours to assure minimal visual disturbance and minimize soil erosion. 626 xi. Visual Appearance. Tower-Based WCF shall employ Stealth Technology 627 which may include painting or finish of the tower portion. All Tower-Based 628 WCF and Accessory Equipment shall be aesthetically and architecturally 629 compatible with the surrounding environment and shall maximize the use of a 630 like facade to blend with the existing surroundings and neighboring buildings 631 to the greatest extent possible. 632 633 23.9 General Requirements for Wireless Communication Facilities. The following shall apply to 634 all types of wireless communication facilities. Each application for a WCF shall require proof of 635 compliance with the following. 636 637 23.91 Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. 638 (a) Wind and ice. Each WCF shall be designed to withstand the effects of wind gusts 639 and ice to the standard designed by the American National Standards Institute as 640 prepared by the engineering departments of the Electronics Industry Association, 641 and Telecommunications Industry Association (ANSI/TIA-222, as amended), or to 642 the industry standard applicable to the structure. 643 (b) Aviation safety. WCF shall comply with all federal and state laws and regulations 644 concerning aviation safety. 645 (c) Interference. WCF shall not interfere with public safety communications or the 646 reception of broadband, television, radio or other communication services by 647 occupants of nearby properties. 648 (d) Radio frequency emissions. WCF shall not, by itself or in conjunction with other 649 WCFs existing on the same structure at the time of installation, generate radio 650 frequency emissions in excess of the standards and regulations of the FCC, 651 including but not limited to, the FCC Office of Engineering Technology Bulletin 652 65 entitled “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to 653 Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields,” as amended. 654 (e) Signage. WCF owners shall post a sign in a readily visible location identifying the 655 name, phone number of a party to contact in the event of an Emergency, and permit 656 number. The only other signage permitted on the WCF shall be those required by 657 the FCC, or any other federal or state agency. 658 (f) Noise. WCF shall be operated and maintained so as not to produce noise in excess 659 of applicable noise standards under state law and the City Code, except in 660 Emergency situations requiring the use of a backup generator, where such noise 661 standards may be exceeded on a temporary basis only. 662 (g) Engineer seal and signature. All plans and drawings for a WCF shall contain a seal 663 and signature of a professional structural engineer, licensed in the State of 664 Delaware.

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 15 665 (h) FCC license. Each Person that owns or operates a Tower-Based WCF shall submit 666 a copy of its current FCC license, including the name, address, and Emergency 667 telephone number for the operator of the facility. 668 669 23.92 Maintenance and Care of Wireless Communications Facilities. 670 (a) Standard of care. Any WCF shall be designed, constructed, operated, maintained, 671 repaired, modified and removed in strict compliance with all current applicable 672 technical, safety and safety-related codes, including but not limited to the most 673 recent editions of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Code, National 674 Electrical Safety Code, National Electrical Code, National Association of Tower 675 Erectors, or to the industry standard applicable to the structure. 676 (b) Maintenance. Any WCF shall at all times be kept and maintained in good condition, 677 order and repair by qualified maintenance and construction personnel, so that the 678 same shall not endanger the life of any Person or damage any property in the City. 679 Such maintenance shall be performed to ensure the upkeep of the WCF in order to 680 promote the safety and security of the City’s residents and utilize industry standard 681 technology for preventing failures and accidents. The following maintenance 682 requirements shall apply: 683 i. The WCF shall be fully automated and unattended on a daily basis and shall 684 be visited only for maintenance or Emergency repair. 685 ii. Such maintenance shall be performed to ensure compliance with applicable 686 structural safety standards and radio frequency emissions regulations. 687 iii. All maintenance activities shall conform to industry maintenance standards. 688 (c) Lighting. The WCF Applicant shall promptly report any outage or malfunction of 689 FAA-mandated lighting to the appropriate governmental authorities and to the City. 690 (d) Graffiti. Any graffiti on the WCF or on any Accessory Equipment shall be removed 691 at the sole expense of the owner within thirty (30) days of notification by the City. 692 693 23.93 Inspection of Wireless Communication Facilities. The City reserves the right to inspect 694 any WCF to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Appendix B: Zoning and any other 695 provisions found within the City Code or state or federal law. The City and/or its agents shall 696 have the authority to enter the lease area of any property upon which a WCF is located at any 697 time, upon reasonable notice to the operator, to ensure such compliance. 698 699 23.94 Construction and Repairs in the Right-of-way. 700 (a) Work in Right-of-Way. The City of Dover Electric Department and the City of 701 Dover Public Works Department, in consultation with the City Planning 702 Department, shall determine the time, place and manner of construction, 703 maintenance, repair and/or removal of all Small WCF in the ROW based on public 704 safety, traffic management, physical burden on the ROW, and related 705 considerations. All construction, maintenance, repair and/or removal of Small 706 WCF shall comply with the applicable requirements of the City code. 707 (b) Pole Repairs. In the event of damage to a Small WCF attached to a utility pole 708 owned or controlled by the City of Dover Electric Department, the owner of the 709 Small WCF shall be solely responsible for all costs associated with the repair of the 710 Small WCF, unless such damage was caused by the City’s own negligence or 711 willful misconduct.

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 16 712 (c) Repairs of City property. In the event of damage to City property during installation 713 of any WCF, including utility poles, streets, sidewalks, streetlights, signs, or other 714 infrastructure, the company responsible for the damage shall make repairs accepted 715 by the City or shall reimburse the City for the cost of such repairs. 716 (d) Change or Alteration Required. Within ninety (90) days following written notice 717 from the City, or such longer period as the City determines is reasonably necessary or 718 such shorter period in the case of an emergency, an owner of a Small WCF in the 719 ROW shall, at its own expense, temporarily or permanently remove, relocate, 720 change or alter the position of any WCF when the City, consistent with its police 721 powers and applicable Public Utility Commission regulations, determines that such 722 removal, relocation, change or alteration is reasonably necessary under the 723 following circumstances: 724 i. The construction, repair, maintenance or installation of any City or other 725 public improvement in the right-of-way; 726 ii. The operations of the City or other governmental entity in the Right-of- 727 Way; 728 iii. Vacation of a street or road or the release of a utility easement; or 729 iv. An Emergency as determined by the City. 730 In such cases the City will make reasonable efforts to assist the WCF owner in 731 identifying and permitting an alternate location for the WCF. 732 23.95 Removal. In the event that use of a WCF is to be discontinued, the owner shall provide 733 written notice to the City of its intent to discontinue use and the date when the use shall be 734 discontinued and removed. Unused or abandoned WCF, or portions of WCF, shall be removed 735 as follows: 736 (a) Complete removal of the structure of a Tower-Based WCF shall require a 737 Demolition Permit in accordance with permit policies and procedures pursuant to 738 Appendix B, Article 8, Section 1 – Building Permit. 739 (b) Any unused portions of Tower-Based WCF, including Antennae, shall be removed 740 within ninety (90) days of the time of cessation of operations. All Replacements of 741 portions of a Tower-Based WCF previously removed are subject to the provisions 742 of this Section 23. 743 (c) All used or abandoned WCFs and Accessory Equipment shall be removed from the 744 wireless support structure within ninety (90) days of the cessation of operations at 745 the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. 746 (d) If the WCF or Accessory Equipment is not removed from the wireless support 747 structure within ninety (90) days of the cessation of operations at a site, or within 748 any longer period approved by the City, the WCF and/or associated facilities and 749 equipment may be removed by the City and the cost of removal assessed against 750 the owner of the WCF. 751 752 753 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 754 755 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 12 – Definitions of the Dover Code, be amended by inserting 756 the following in correct alphabetical order: 757

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 17 758 Antenna: An apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF) radiation, 759 to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Federal Communications 760 Commission authorization, for the provision of wireless service and any commingled 761 information services. 762 763 Wireless Communications Facility (WCF). An antenna facility or a wireless support 764 structure that is used for the provision of wireless service, whether such service is provided 765 on a stand-alone basis or commingled with other wireless communications services. 766 767 768 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 769 770 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 3 Section 20B – Industrial park manufacturing zone – 771 Industrial aviation and aeronautics center (IPM3) of the Dover Code, be amended by inserting 772 the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 773 774 20B.1 Uses permitted. In an IPM3 zone, no building or premises shall be used and no 775 building or part of a building shall be erected, which is arranged, intended or designed to 776 be used, in whole or in part, for any purpose, except the following, and in accordance with 777 performance standards review procedure as set forth in article 5 sections 8.2 and 8.6, and 778 subject to site development plan approval as set forth in article 10, section 2: 779 20B.17 Radio or television broadcasting towers, telecommunications towers, 780 antenna arrays, and receiving satellite dishes that support aviation, aeronautics, or 781 related operations. 782 20B.2 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted, conditional upon the approval 783 of the planning commission in accordance with the procedures and subject to the general 784 conditions set forth in article 10, section 1. service establishments such as auto rental and 785 travel agencies, commercial parking lots and garages, automobile service stations, car 786 washes, banks, gift shops, newsstands, bookstores, restaurants, bars, medical offices, postal 787 facilities, laundry services, and similar facilities available to airport or spaceport users and 788 employees. The application for conditional use shall clearly demonstrate the relationship 789 of the proposed use to an existing or proposed airport or spaceport. 790 20B.21 Service establishments such as auto rental and travel agencies, 791 commercial parking lots and garages, automobile service stations, car washes, 792 banks, gift shops, newsstands, bookstores, restaurants, bars, medical offices, 793 postal facilities, laundry services, and similar facilities available to airport or 794 spaceport users and employees. 795 20B.22 Radio or television broadcasting towers, tower based wireless 796 communications facilities, antenna arrays, and receiving satellite dishes that 797 support aviation, aeronautics, or related operations. 798 799 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 800

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 18 801 That Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 Section 21 – Public utility infrastructure of the Dover 802 Code, be amended be amended by inserting the text indicated in bold, blue font and deleting the 803 text indicated in red strikeout as follows: 804 Section 21. - Public utility infrastructure. 805 Public utility infrastructure shall be permitted in all zones and generally exempt from the 806 requirements of Article 4—Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, except as provided in 807 this section. 808 21.1 Setback. The minimum setback for public utility structures shall be equal to 809 the setback of the zone in which the structure is located. 810 21.2 Fences. Fences shall be limited to a maximum height of eight feet above 811 ground. 812 21.3 Site development plan required. Site development plan approval in 813 accordance with article 10, section 2 hereof shall be required prior to the 814 issuance of building permits for the erection or enlargement of all structures 815 and related accessory structures. 816 21.4 Exceptions. 817 21.41 Electric power generation facilities shall be subject to all zoning 818 requirements. 819 21.42 Private communications antennas and towers shall not be considered 820 public utility infrastructure under the provisions of this subsection, and 821 shall be subject to all zoning requirements. 822 21.42 Wireless communication facilities as defined in Article 5 Section 823 23 shall not be considered public utility infrastructure under the 824 provisions of this subsection and shall be subject to the provisions 825 of Article 5 Section 23. 826 827 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 828 829 That Chapter 98 – Street, Sidewalks, Storm Sewers and Other Public Places of the Dover Code, 830 be amended by inserting a new Section 98-11 Placement of wireless communications facilities 831 within rights-of-way. 832 833 Sec. 98-11. – Placement of wireless communications facilities within rights-of-way. 834 (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to the use of rights-of-way as 835 dedicated to the city or as otherwise maintained by the city. 836 837 (b) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall 838 have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly 839 indicates a different meaning: 840 841 Wireless Communications Facility (WCF). An antenna facility or a wireless 842 support structure that is used for the provision of wireless service, whether such 843 service is provided on a stand-alone basis or commingled with other wireless 844 communications services.

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 19 845 846 Wireless Support Structure. A freestanding structure, pole, tower, or other building, 847 whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is used or to be used to support 848 the placement or installation of a wireless communication facility for the provision 849 of wireless service (whether on its own or comingled with other types of services). 850 851 (c) Uses of Rights-of-way Permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, 852 erect or affix any wireless support structure within or that encroaches upon any right- 853 of-way owned or maintained by the city, unless and until such use of the right-of-way 854 shall have been approved. A Rights-of-Way Use Permit shall be obtained from the city 855 manager or their designee. 856 (1) Permit Fees. Each application for permit shall be accompanied by a fee as 857 provided for in Appendix F – Fees and Fines. 858 (2) Annual Fee for Rights-of-Way Use. Each wireless support structure not 859 owned or maintained by the city located within or that encroaches upon any 860 right-of-way owned or maintained city shall be subject to an annual fee as 861 provided for in Appendix F – Fees and Fines. 862 863 (d) Approval required. Construction, erection or placement any wireless communication 864 facility or wireless support structure within or encroaches upon any right-of-way owned 865 or maintained by the city shall be in accordance with the provisions of Appendix B – 866 Zoning, Article 5 Section 23. 867 868 869 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 870 871 That Appendix F – Fees and Fines of the Dover Code, be amended by inserting new sections, as 872 follows: 873 874 Chapter 98. – Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places 875 Chapter 98. Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Fees and Fines Places Article I. In General Sec. 98-11 Placement of wireless communications facilities within rights-of-way (c) Use of Rights of Way Permit (1) Permit Fee $25 for ROW Permit (2) Annual Fee for Rights-of-way Use No charge for WCF placement on existing City owned wireless support structure in City ROW $220 for Placement of new wireless support structure/pole in City ROW

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 20 $220 for WCF placement on a third party/non-City wireless support structure/pole in City ROW 876 877 878 Chapter 110. – Utilities 879 Chapter 110. Utilities Fees and Fines Article II. Electric Service Sec. 110-32. Pole attachment fee; use of Dover Electric Department facilities Subsection (4) Fees and changes; Wireless Communications Facility $50 Annual Fee per Attachment on City Attachment owned wireless support structure/pole 880 881 Appendix B. Zoning 882 Appendix B. Zoning Fees and Fines Article 5. Supplementary Regulations Sec. 23 Wireless Communications Facilities Subsec. 23.5 Application Procedures 23.51 Location within Public Right-of-way (f) Fee WCF Building Permit Fee is $25.00 for first $1,000.00 of costs and $8.00 for each additional $1,000.00 of costs or multiples thereof up to $10,000,000.00 of costs 23.53 Eligible Facilities Request (d) Fee WCF Building Permit Fee is $25.00 for first $1,000.00 of costs and $8.00 for each additional $1,000.00 of costs or multiples thereof up to $10,000,000.00 of costs 23.54 Substantial Change Activity (d) Fee WCF Building Permit Fee is $25.00 for first $1,000.00 of costs and $8.00 for each additional $1,000.00 of costs or multiples thereof up to $10,000,000.00 of costs 23.55 New Facilities (a) Conditional use authorization $425.00, plus $25.00 per acre of the area required. or multiple thereof involved in the Conditional Use Permit application (d) Fee WCF Building Permit Fee is $25.00 for first $1,000.00 of costs and $8.00 for each additional $1,000.00 of costs or

Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 – Wireless Communications Facilities Page 21 multiples thereof up to $10,000,000.00 of costs 23.56 New Small WCF (d) Fee WCF Building Permit Fee is $25.00 for first $1,000.00 of costs and $8.00 for each additional $1,000.00 of costs or multiples thereof up to $10,000,000.00 of costs 883 884 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED: 885 886 That this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 887 888 889 ADOPTED: * 890 I:\DAC\2020 Applications\10 October 2020\MI-20-06 Text Amendments Wireless Communications 891 Facilities\FINAL READING Proposed Ordinance #2020-13 Wireless Communications Facilities 11-9-2020.docx 892 893 SYNOPSIS 894 This proposed Ordinance adds provisions for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) by 895 adding a new Section 23 – Wireless Communication Facilities to the Zoning Ordinance and 896 completing other amendments to the Dover Code of Ordinances. This proposed Ordinance 897 provides definitions; establishes certain general and specific standards relating to the location, 898 placement, construction and maintenance of Small WCF, Non-Tower Based WCF, and Tower- 899 Based WCF; provides for the regulations of WCF within the public rights-of-ways and outside 900 public rights-of-way on properties; and provides for the enforcement of said regulations. Also 901 associated with this Ordinance is the development of the City of Dover “Small Wireless 902 Communications Facility (SWCF) Design Manual” as referenced for design standards for Small 903 Wireless Communications Facilities. 904 (Sponsors: Hugg and City Manager’s Office) 905 906 Actions History: 907 2/11/2020 – Update on Provisions and Development of Ordinance: Wireless Communication 908 Facilities at Council Committee of the Whole – Utility Committee. Referred to Staff for 909 continued work. 910 7/14/2020 – Update and Presentation of Preliminary Draft Wireless Communications Facilities 911 (WCF) Ordinance Version 1A – Planning 7-8-2020 at Council Committee of the Whole – Utility 912 Committee. Referred to Staff for continued work. 913 9/15/2020 – Update and Presentation of Draft Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) 914 Ordinance Version 2 – Planning 9-9-2020 at Council Committee of the Whole – Utility 915 Committee. Recommend Staff complete refinements and refer to City Council for First Reading 916 and setting of Public Hearing dates. 917 9/28/2020 – First Reading at City Council 918 10/19/2020 – Public Hearing and Review for Recommendation by Planning Commission 919 11/9/2020 – Scheduled for Public Hearing and Final Reading & Action at City Council 920

PRELIMINARY DRAFT #3 CITY OF DOVER SMALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (Small WCF) DESIGN MANUAL This Small Wireless Communications Facility Design Manual (Small WCF Design Manual) is part of the City of Dover Wireless Communication Facilities provisions as found in the Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B – Zoning, Article 5 – Supplemental Regulations, Section 23 and other referenced sections. It addresses the applicable design standards and the process for application and review by the City of Dover for Small Wireless Communications Facility applications. Small Wireless Communications Facilities have a specific definition and are governed by the Dover Code of Ordinances and the Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 23 which outlines development regulations and application review procedures. This Small WCF Design Manual is specifically referenced in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 23.6(c) as the source for the Design Standards for Small Wireless Communications Facilities. The installation of Small WCFs are subject to applicable Review Processes and Fees for Permits, Applications, Pole Attachment provisions, and Annual Right-of-Way Usage. A Wireless Communications Facility Building Permit (WCF Building Permit) is required for all proposed Small Wireless Communications Facility activities whether involving modifications to existing facilities or involving an attachment to an existing utility pole or similar support structure or a new location for a Small Wireless Communications Facility. Review of Small Wireless Communications Facilities proposals is an administrative review process subject to the adopted Code regulations and this Small WCF Design Manual. DESIGN STANDARDS for SMALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES SECTION I. DEFINITIONS The adopted Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 23) includes a series of definitions. For assistance in using the Small WCF Design Manual, the following terms are defined as follows: 1. Accessory Equipment – Any equipment serving or being used in conjunction with a wireless communications facility or wireless support structure. The term “Accessory Equipment” includes but is not limited to utility or transmission equipment, power Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 1 of 13

supplies, generators, batteries, cables, equipment buildings, cabinets and storage sheds, shelters or similar structures. 2. Antenna – An apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radio frequency (RF) radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Federal Communications Commission authorization, for the provision of wireless service and any commingled information services. 3. Collocation – The mounting of one or more WCFs, including antennae, on a pre-existing structure, or modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing a WCF on that structure. 4. Decorative Pole – A City-owned pole that is specially designed and placed for aesthetic purpose and on which no appurtenances or attachments, other than a small wireless communications facility, lighting, or municipal attachments (informational or directional signage, temporary holiday/event attachments as banners or decorations) have been placed or are permitted to be placed. 5. Prior Approved Design – A design for a small wireless communications facility that has been reviewed and deemed to be in accordance with this Design Manual and approved for construction by the City. 6. Small Wireless Communications Facility (Small WCF) - A wireless communications facility that meets the following criteria: (1) The structure on which antenna facilities are mounted a) is 50 feet or less in height, or b) is no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or c) is not extended to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent above its preexisting height as a result of the collocation of new antenna facilities; and (2) Each antenna associated with the deployment (excluding the associated equipment) is no more than three (3) cubic feet in volume; and (3) All antenna equipment associated with the facility (excluding antennas) are cumulatively no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; and (4) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under 47 CFR Part 17; and (5) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR §800.16(x); and (6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in 47 CFR §1.1307(b). Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 2 of 13

7. Stealth Technology — Camouflaging or screening methods applied to wireless communications facilities and accessory equipment which render them more visually appealing or blend the proposed facility into the existing structure or visual backdrop in a manner appropriate to the site’s context and surrounding environment. Such methods include, but are not limited to, architecturally screened roof-mounted antennae, building- mounted antennae painted to match the existing structure and facilities constructed to resemble trees, shrubs, and light poles. 8. Underground Utility Area – A portion of the City in which all utility installations are required to be installed underground on a non-discriminatory basis pursuant to Section 110- 31 of the Dover Code of Ordinances. The Section incorporates the “Electric Service Handbook” by reference. 9. Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) - An antenna facility or a wireless support structure that is used for the provision of wireless service, whether such service is provided on a stand-alone basis or commingled with other wireless communications services. 10. Wireless Support Structure - A freestanding structure, pole, tower, or other building, whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is used or to be used to support the placement or installation of a wireless communication facility for the provision of wireless service (whether on its own or comingled with other types of services). SECTION II. GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SMALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Small Wireless Communications Facilities (Small WCF) are governed by the regulations found in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 23.6. Small WCF may be located within the public rights-of- way or on other property in all zoning districts. In addition to the Location and Development Regulations found within the Code, the following Design Standards are presented. 1. Applicants for Small Wireless Communications Facility locations shall first consider collocation on an existing City owned utility pole, or a replacement with a new pole in the same general location and matching to the maximum extent possible the existing style, color, materials, and configuration of the pole being replaced. 2. Small Wireless Communications Facilities shall only be located on distribution voltage electric utility poles meeting the approval of the City of Dover Electric Department. These installations will be a minimum of six (6) feet above the secondary conductors. Installation above primary conductors is prohibited. Installation on transmission voltage poles is prohibited. Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 3 of 13

3. Small Wireless Communications Facilities may be considered for placement on an existing Decorative Pole when the applicant provides documentation showing that such Decorative Pole is the only technically feasible location for placement and that no suitable alternative sites exist. A replacement Decorative Pole of similar style or the addition of a Decorative Pole may be used if accepted by the City Manager or their designee. 4. The viability of any existing wireless support structures within 100 feet of the proposed Small Wireless Communications Facility location shall be evaluated. The Applicant must demonstrate that the alternative candidates are inferior with respect to technical facility, cost, or terms of use prior to a new wireless support structure being authorized. 5. Small Wireless Communications Facility locations must comply with applicable provisions set forth in Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 Section 23.52 for the Wireless Communications Facilities as related to Historic Districts, Airport Environs Overlay Zone (AEOZ), and Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 6. Small Wireless Communications Facilities shall comply with the maximum height permitted in the zoning district to the extent technically feasible. 7. Small Wireless Communications Facilities shall be designed and constructed to minimize aesthetic impact on the surrounding neighborhood in accordance with this Small WCF Design Manual to the extent technically feasible. 8. Stealth technology methods to camouflage or screen shall be utilized to render Small Wireless Communications Facilities more visually appealing or to blend the proposed facility into its wireless support structure and/or the visual backdrop of the placement. Methods should be appropriate to the site’s context and surrounding environment. 9. Small Wireless Communications Facility shall not extend beyond the boundaries of the rights-of-way unless approved on a case-by-case basis by the City Manager or their designee. 10. The wireless support structure and related equipment of the Small Wireless Communications Facility shall not obstruct vehicular, pedestrian, or cyclist traffic or sight lines in an unsafe manner that obstructs, impedes or hinders the usual travel or public safety. 11. Small Wireless Communications Facilities shall comply with applicable federal and state standards regarding pedestrian access and movement. Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 4 of 13

12. Small Wireless Communications Facilities shall comply, to the extent consistent with applicable state and federal law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, guidelines adopted by the City, and all applicable requirements of the City Code relating to streets and sidewalks as established by the Dover Code of Ordinances, Chapter 98. 13. Small Wireless Communications Facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the National Electric Safety Code and the National Electrical Code, as applicable. 14. Small Wireless Communications Facilities shall be designed to withstand the effects of wind gusts and ice to the standard designed by the American National Standards Institute as prepared by the engineering departments of the Electronics Industry Association and Telecommunications Industry Association (ANSI/TIA-222, as amended), or to the industry standard applicable to the structure. 15. Any existing City-owned utility pole requiring replacement that is currently utilizing a concrete base will have the concrete base removed and replaced with a breakaway steel screw in foundation. This foundation type is not required for third party pole installations. SECTION III. ANTENNA AND ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT STANDARDS The following standards are presented for Antenna, Accessary Equipment, and Wiring as associated with Small Wireless Communications Facilities. 1. Antenna Standards a. Any Antenna associated with a Small Wireless Communications Facility shall not exceed three (3) cubic feet in volume. b. All pole-top Antennas shall be flush-mounted as closely to the top of the pole as technically feasible. Location must be a minimum of six (6) feet above secondary conductors on a utility pole. c. All Antennas shall be of a design, style, and color that reasonably matches the pole upon which they are attached. d. Any necessary pole-top extension shall be of the minimum height necessary to achieve separation from the existing pole attachments; and a minimum clearance of six (6) feet above primary distribution wires. e. Any Antenna mounted on a lateral standoff bracket shall protrude no more than necessary to meet clearances. f. If mounted on an existing structure, Antenna shall not impair the function of said structure. g. Antenna placement shall not materially impair light, air, or views from adjacent windows to the extent technically feasible. Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 5 of 13

h. No more than two (2) collocated Small Wireless Communications Facilities shall be permitted on a single utility pole. 2. Accessory Equipment Standards a. Accessory Equipment shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) cubic feet in volume. Equipment utilized solely for the minimization or mitigation of the aesthetic impact of the Small Wireless Communications Facility shall not be included in the Accessory Equipment volume calculation. b. Accessory Equipment shall be mounted flush to the side of a pole, or as near flush to the side of a pole as technically feasible. c. Accessory Equipment shall be mounted to provide a minimum of eight (8) feet vertical clearance from ground level. d. Meter socket installations shall be no lower than four (4) feet and no higher than six (6) feet above finished grade. If installed in a pole manufactured to house Small WCF equipment, the pole will be positioned to allow a minimum of three (3) feet clearance to allow access to the meter. e. Accessory Equipment and its attachment hardware (i.e. banding, straps) shall be of a color that reasonably matches the pole or wireless support structure upon which such Accessory Equipment is mounted. f. To the extent feasible, Accessory Equipment shall be contained within a single equipment shroud or cabinet. Such equipment shroud or cabinet shall be of the smallest dimensions technically feasible. g. Small Wireless Communications Facilities shall post a sign in a readily visible location identifying the owner’s permit number and the name and phone number of a party to contact in the event of an emergency. The only other signage permitted shall be that required by the FCC or any other federal or state agency. All signage associated with a Small Wireless Communications Facility shall be reviewed as part of the WCF Building Permit process. h. Accessory Equipment placement shall not materially impair light, air or views from adjacent windows. To the extent technically feasible, all Accessory Equipment shall be placed away from adjacent windows and the primary pattern of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. i. Accessory Equipment shall not feature any lighting, including flashing indicator lights, unless required by state or federal law. 3. Wiring Standards a. Exposed wiring is prohibited on any Small Wireless Communications Facility, Accessory Equipment or Accessory Equipment enclosure. b. Transmission, fiber, power cables and any other wiring shall be contained within any pole for which such concealment is technically feasible. If wiring cannot be Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 6 of 13

contained within the pole, all wiring shall be contained within conduit or U-guard that is flush-mounted to the pole. c. Any conduit or U-guard shall be of a color that reasonably matches the pole to which the Small Wireless Communications Facility is attached. d. All wiring shall be installed without excessive slack or extra cable storage on the pole. Loops or coils of extra wiring shall not be attached to or otherwise visibly stored on any pole. e. Service lines must be undergrounded whenever feasible to avoid additional overhead lines. SECTION IV. POLE STANDARDS The following standards are presented for the types of Poles as wireless support structures for Small Wireless Communications Facilities. 1. Replacement Utility Poles. a. Any replacement utility poles utilized as wireless support structures shall comply with the following requirements to the extent that the requirements do not conflict with the standards and requirements of the owner of the wireless support structure being replaced: i. The maximum height of any proposed replacement utility pole shall be: 1) no more than ten (10%) percent taller than the tallest existing utility pole in the public rights-of-way within a two hundred fifty (250) foot radius of the proposed Small Wireless Communications Facility; or 2) fifty (50) feet above ground level, whichever is greater. ii. Any replacement utility pole shall be of comparable materials and design to the existing utility pole. All attachment hardware will match, as much as possible, to the color of the pole being installed. iii. Any replacement utility pole shall be placed within five (5) feet of the existing utility pole being replaced. iv. Any replacement utility pole shall be designed to accommodate all uses that existed on the existing utility pole prior to replacement. As part of an application for a Small Wireless Communications Facility, the applicant shall provide documentation from a structural engineer licensed in the State of Delaware confirming that the replacement utility pole, Small Wireless Communications Facility, and prior existing uses shall be structurally sound. v. Any replacement utility pole shall not deviate from the predominant pattern of existing adjacent structures including their alignment to the extent possible. Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 7 of 13

b. Replacement of any City owned utility pole shall comply with the following requirements: i. Any existing City owned utility pole requiring replacement that is currently utilizing a concrete base will have the concrete base removed and replaced with a breakaway steel screw-in foundation. ii. City owned poles requiring replacement that contain lighting attached with davit arms must allow for the installation of the same lighting configuration on the new pole. iii. Replaced City-owned poles will be capable of supporting davit arms for lights. If the original arm cannot be installed on the new pole, a new arm will be provided by the applicant. 2. New Small WCF Poles a. The maximum height of any new Small Wireless Communications Facility pole when located in the public right-of-way shall be: 1) no more than ten (10%) percent taller than the tallest existing utility or wireless support structure in the public rights-of-way within a two hundred fifty (250) foot radius of the proposed Small Wireless Communications Facility; or 2) fifty (50) feet above ground level, whichever is greater. b. Any new pole shall be installed in accordance with the predominant pattern of existing adjacent structures including their alignment to the extent possible. c. New poles shall be of the same or similar material and color of existing adjacent structures. d. To the extent technically feasible, no new Small WCF pole shall be installed: i. Directly in front of any building entrance or exit so that it would interfere with ingress or egress; ii. Directly in front of a window of any residential structure; iii. Within ten (10) feet of the edge of any driveway; iv. In the public rights-of-way directly opposite any driveway; v. In a manner that unreasonably increases visual clutter or disorganization of utility infrastructure along the street; or vi. In violation of the design standards contained herein. 3. Decorative Poles: a. Decorative Poles shall be required in any portion of the City where all utility installations are required to be installed underground on a non-discriminatory basis pursuant to Dover Code of Ordinances, Section 110-31 unless not technically feasible. b. Decorative Poles shall be required for the replacement of any existing Decorative Pole. Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 8 of 13

c. For any replacement Decorative Pole, the new Decorative Pole shall match the existing Decorative Pole in shape, design, color, and material. d. Replacement Decorative Poles shall also comply with the requirements of replacement utility poles found in Section IV (1) of this Small WCF Design Manual. SECTION V. REVIEW AND APPROVAL There are review and approval processes established for Small Wireless Communications Facilities as part of the adopted Wireless Communications Facilities provisions. A Wireless Communications Facility Building Permit (WCF Building Permit) is required for all proposed Small Wireless Communications Facility activities whether involving modifications to existing facilities or involving an attachment to an existing utility pole or similar support structure or a new location for a Small Wireless Communications Facility. An Application for Wireless Communications Facility Building Permit shall be submitted on the proper form with accompanying documentation to the City of Dover, Delaware Department of Planning & Inspections prior to initiation of any construction or installation. The Department will coordinate an administrative review for proposals under the adopted Code regulations and this Small WCF Design Manual. The following is a summary of the review and approval process for Small Wireless Communications Facilities. 1. Consultation a. Applicants are encouraged to become familiar with the regulations and application review procedures for Wireless Communications Facilities for the City of Dover, Delaware. b. The applicant may choose to participate in a pre-application consultation meeting with City Planner or designee in order to discuss any location, aesthetic or safety concerns of the City with respect to the proposed Small WCF. c. The City Planner shall consult with the City Manager, the Dover Electric Department, the City Public Works Department and any other applicable City departments and shall advise the applicant of any findings or recommendations. 2. Application Submission a. A Wireless Communications Facilities Building Permit package consisting of the WCF Building Permit Application Form, documentation materials, and Fees are to be submitted to the Department of Planning & Inspections. b. The City Planner shall create a Checklist to be used to determine the requirements for submittal of a “Complete Permit Application.” A Sample Checklist is attached. c. The minimum information required for the WCF Building Permit includes the following: Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 9 of 13

i. Name and address of applicant, including contact person information (phone, email, and mailing address). ii. Address of the proposed Small WCF which may be street address, parcel number, or other definitive location as may be relevant to the location. iii. Physical geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) iv. Design and construction details presented in plans and drawings d. For Small WCF installations within City rights-of-way, a Rights-of-way Use Permit with Fee is required. e. For Small WCF installations on City-owned support structures (poles), submission of proof of valid Master License Agreement is required. 3. Application Review a. The City Planner shall reasonably determine whether a proposed Small Wireless Communications Facility design complies with the requirements of the Small WCF Design Manual and Code regulations. b. The City Planner shall coordinate the review of Application Submission by the appropriate City Departments including the City Manager, the Dover Electric Department, and the City Public Works Department. The City Planner shall advise the applicant of any findings or recommendations from the review. c. The City Planner may impose such additional, reasonable conditions as determined by the City to minimize the impact of the Small Wireless Communications Facility on the neighborhood in which to be located. d. A WCF Building Permit will not be issued until a Rights-of-Way Use Permit and/or City of Dover Pole Agreement are approved and in place if required for the Small Wireless Communications Facility. e. The review and the resulting approval or denial of the WCF Building Permit shall be provided in writing to the applicant. The WCF Building Permit may be issued by paper copy or authorized electronic copy. 4. Waivers of Small WCF Design Manual a. Any requests for a waiver of the requirements of this Small WCF Design Manual shall be considered on a case-by-case basis by the City Planner. The waiver request shall be approved upon a determination that such waiver is in the best interests of the City or necessary to avoid the effective prohibition of wireless service pursuant to the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission. b. Upon approval of a design for a Small Wireless Communications Facility requiring a waiver from the requirements of this Small WCF Design Manual, such design shall be incorporated by reference into this Design Manual as a Prior Approved Design. c. A record of Prior Approved Designs shall be kept on file at the City Planning and Inspections Office. Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 10 of 13

SECTION VI. APPROVAL TIMING Approval timing for Permits and Applications shall be as set forth in Section 23.57 of the City of Dover Wireless Communications Facilities regulations (Dover Code of Ordinances, Appendix B- Zoning, Article 5, Section 23 and referenced sections). The specific approval timeframes are also subject to the tolling procedures established by the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC). SECTION VII. AMENDMENT OF DESIGN MANUAL This Small Wireless Communications Facility Design Manual may be amended as necessary to comply with adopted regulations for Wireless Communications Facilities, the Dover Code of Ordinances, and other related regulations and policies established by the City affecting this activity. A copy of the current Small WCF Design Manual shall be available from the Department of Planning & Inspections. Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 11 of 13

DRAFT Small Wireless Communications Facility Design Checklist The information detailed in the following Checklist shall be included with any application for a Small Wireless Communications Facility (Small WCF): Item Description Included in Application? Yes No Cover Letter • The application shall include a cover letter detailing the location of the proposed Small WCF site, summary of equipment being proposed, and a certification that the applicant has included all information required by the City Code. Plan & • Plan and drawings shall show proposed Drawings wireless support structure and equipment associated with the Small WCF. • The manufacturer and model, proposed location, and dimensions of each piece of equipment should be clearly shown. • Before and after diagrams of the proposed site showing the dimensional changes shall be included. • If the existing pole supports existing attachments, the site plan shall show the location and dimensions of all such attachments. • If installation of a new utility pole or decorative pole is being proposed, the site plan shall include the color, dimensions, material and type of pole proposed. • The site plan shall show the location of any existing wireless support structures within one hundred (100) feet of the proposed Small WCF location, including but not limited to residential structures, commercial structures, light poles, traffic signals, traffic signage, and existing poles. • The plan and drawings shall show location and information of existing utility poles within two hundred fifty (250) feet radius of the proposed Small WCF location. Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 12 of 13

Item Description Included in Application? Yes No Volume • Provide dimensions and volume Calculations calculations of each Antenna. • Provide dimensions and volume calculations of Accessory Equipment. Photo • Photo simulations shall depict the Small Simulations WCF from at least two locations near the proposed site. • The photo simulations should reflect the proposed design and location of all Antenna and Accessory Equipment associated with the Small WCF. Material & • Information on material and color of Color Accessory Equipment to match mounting location. • Information on methods employed to achieve aesthetic uniformity of the site. Wiring • All proposed wires associated with the Small WCF shall be clearly shown. • A depiction and description of the concealment methods to be utilized for the wiring shall be included. Signage • Signage shall be posted in a readily visible location and identify the owner’s permit number and the name and phone number of a party to contact in the event of an emergency. • If required, FCC-mandated signage is permitted. Applicant shall identify such signage in its application. Right-of-way • Copy of Rights-of-Way Use Permit for Placement Small WCF location, if required. • Information to demonstrate that line of sight is not impaired. Preliminary DRAFT #3 Small WCF Design Manual 11-2-2020 Page 13 of 13

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Council Committee of the Whole was held by video conference on October 27, 2020 at 6:03 p.m., with Council President Hare presiding. Council members present via video or telephone were Mr. Anderson, Mr. Neil, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Cole, Mr. Rocha, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Lindell (arrived at 6:04 p.m.). Mr. Cole and Mr. Sudler were absent. Mayor Christiansen was also present. Civilian members present via video or telephone for their Committee meetings were Mr. Contant and Mr. Shevock (Legislative, Finance, and Administration). Mr. Wagner and Mr. Shelton (Safety Advisory and Transportation) were absent. LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met with Council President Hare presiding in the absence of Chairman Lindell. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Budget Amendment - Community Policing Unit Mr. Matthew Harline, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the budget amendment for the Community Policing Unit. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Budget Amendments totaling $177,900 for Fiscal Year 2021. Mr. Neil moved to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Project Management Services - Enterprise Resources Planning Systems (ERP) Ms. Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the background and analysis regarding the project management services for Enterprise Resources Planning Systems (ERP). Staff recommended authorization for the Controller/Treasurer to enter into a contract with BerryDunn for the purpose of Project Management with the Enterprise Resource Planning system implementation for the remaining phases of this project and to amend the Electric Improvement and Extension Fund budget for the requested amount as projected each fiscal year. Mr. Neil asked if the new request had moved from the consulting and teaching phase to the operational management phase, noting that they would be temporary contractual employees for a period from 2020 to December 2023. Responding, Ms. Peddicord stated that they were considering converting the contract with BerryDunn from project oversight to project management and that was to ensure that the software vendor performed as promised. She advised that, as the project management team, it would be their responsibility to train City Staff. Ms. Peddicord stated that as the project manager, they would closely monitor, with the City, to manage the implementation activities for each of the upcoming phases. Ms. Peddicord noted that they would serve to identify any risks and/or issues that they encountered in implementing the new software.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2020 PAGE 2 Ms. Peddicord advised that she discovered over the past three years, and more recently, that the project management was very time consuming and they needed a full-time, or at least part-time, dedicated person to ensure nothing was missed. Mr. Neil asked how much the new efficiency was expected to save in taxpayer dollars during the next 5 - 10 years. Responding, Ms. Peddicord stated that she could not equate it to an expected tax savings, but could reference that when they signed the original contract there was recognition of savings in the action form provided. She advised that it appeared in the annual maintenance cost comparison from the Legacy system to the new system, that the old system entailed about $349,000 and the new system was going to reduce that to $244,000. Ms. Peddicord stated that they were going to see a lot more efficiencies, improvements, and communications with citizens. She noted that the program would enable online payments through the portal and would provide the ability for Staff, vendors, and citizens to access their accounts online. Responding to Mr. Neil, Mr. Harline stated that the Tyler Munis system would do more than the AS400 base Naviline system. He noted that the new technologies would provide additional options and give the user the experience that they would expect. He noted that the different pieces would fit together and allow for integration. Ms. Peddicord noted that it was hard to equate the dollar amount of the implementation of the six-phase project in the front end. She stated that after the users learn the system and understand how to gain the best knowledge of it, she believed they were going to see a lot more cost saving. Mr. Contant stated that he remembered eight or nine months ago, that it was suggested that there might be a possibility or a need to hire a full-time person to interface between City Staff and Tyler. He noted that looking at the increase, $421,800 was a lot of money but, according to the documents, that should be recouped in roughly four years. He stated that if they used the system for the next 20 years, that would turn out to be a significantly larger sum that they would hopefully be saving. Mr. Contant stated they would have the opportunity to grow the system into smart meters and everything else that they would want to do over time. Responding to Mr. Contant's concern, Ms. Peddicord provided the following information: • The project manager would be aggressive in ensuring that Tyler Technologies fulfilled their obligations. • BerryDunn has been involved throughout the project in a management oversight capacity and could be more aggressive in addressing issues. • If they decided that BerryDunn was not being as aggressive as they wanted, they could address recourse. • Regarding a contract that laid out their expected responsibilities, authority, and mediation process, Ms. Peddicord did not have it on hand, but that in addition to the change request form shifting from oversight to management, there were other areas that were covered under the contract a little differently from one position to the other.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2020 PAGE 3 Mr. Contant stated that he wanted the information in writing and agreed upon before payment is made. He noted that he wanted someone that was going to be aggressive with the software vendor to ensure what was best for the City of Dover. Ms. Peddicord stated if they did not already have that, she would make sure they got verbiage on it and take the appropriate actions. Mr. Neil moved to recommend authorization for the Controller/Treasurer to enter into a contract with BerryDunn for the purpose of Project Management with the Enterprise Resource Planning system implementation for the remaining phases of the project and to amend the Electric Improvement and Extension Fund budget for the requested amount, as projected each fiscal year, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock. Responding to Mr. Rocha, Ms. Peddicord stated that the City dealt with Tyler Technologies directly and that BerryDunn was retained to serve as the project oversight consultant because of their previous knowledge and experience with Tyler Technologies. She stated that BerryDunn originally assisted them with the Tyler Technologies contract and user acceptance testing under the current contract. Ms. Peddicord advised that they were not the go-to person then and they were going to change that scope of work and responsibility. Responding to Mr. Rocha regarding a line in the budget for BerryDunn, Ms. Peddicord stated that it was in the project cost for the ERP implementation. She noted that the consultant for the project oversight and the implementation costs were in that line item. Mr. Rocha asked if the $421,000 was in addition to BerryDunn’s cost for project oversight. Responding, Ms. Peddicord stated that the $421,000 is for project management for the next two or three years that they are contracted. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Upon further clarification Ms. Peddicord stated that only the $421,000 costs for Project Management would be added to the remaining project implementation and/or life of the project timeline anticipated to be December 2023. The Project Oversight services contract with BerryDunn ends upon the approval and transition of the services being provided to the City of Dover on behalf of the Tyler implementation.) Mr. Neil moved to recommend authorization for the Controller/Treasurer to enter into a contract with BerryDunn for the purpose of Project Management with the Enterprise Resource Planning system implementation for the remaining phases of the project and to amend the Electric Improvement and Extension Fund budget for the requested amount projected each fiscal year, as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and carried with Mr. Taylor voting no. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met with Chairman Taylor presiding.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2020 PAGE 4 Adoption of Agenda Mr. Neil moved for adoption of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Rocha and unanimously carried. Reconsideration - Prioritization of City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects During the Regular City Council meeting of October 12, 2020, Council members referred this item back to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee. Mr. David Hugg, Director of Planning and Community Enhancement, reviewed the revised 2020 Prioritization of the City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program. Staff recommended approval of the Revised 2020 Prioritization of the City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects. Responding to Mr. Anderson regarding item #5 of the Prioritization of the City of Dover State CTP Projects - Sidewalks within the walk zone of the new Dover High School, Mr. Hugg stated that he had communicated the only information he had received. He noted that Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) has a separate program for sidewalk improvements that was not part of their specific Capital Program. Mr. Hugg advised that he did not receive an update that indicated increased activity on that project, other than the recognition that those sidewalks and the sidewalks on Route 13 were critical. Mr. Hugg advised that some of the work had been done as part of the bikeway improvements and that there would be some sidewalk improvements as part of both the Kenton Road and Scarborough intersection. Mr. Hugg stated that he could follow up for additional details. Mayor Christiansen stated that their priority was economic development and, as Chairman of the Dover/Kent County MPO, he had pressed that issue. He stated that it was imperative that they realized that the next area for economic development was the $14.7 million that they invested in Garrison Oak. Mayor Christiansen noted the potential for a Civil Air Terminal to be located next to the Kent County Industrial Park and that the property adjacent to it were prime areas for the manufacturing jobs and warehousing facilities that they needed. He noted that it also had potential as a hub for rapid delivery aircraft, as they had seen an overload at Newark and Philadelphia and other airports. Mayor Christiansen stated that if those areas had easy access to Route 1 and to I-95, they had the potential to have DHL, FedEx, and other major carriers locate there. He noted that there was also potential to bring aircraft repair to the industrial park because they would have a captive audience of people that were well-qualified to repair aircraft. Mayor Christiansen stated that he concurred with moving the State College Road project priority up, particularly between Kenton Road and McKee Road. He noted that anybody that had the opportunity to drive out there knew it was a nightmare. Mr. Lindell moved to recommend approval of the Revised 2020 Prioritization of the City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP) Projects (Attachment #1), as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2020 PAGE 5 Meeting adjourned at 6:46 p.m. Mr. Neil moved for adjournment of the Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anderson and unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:46 p.m. William F. Hare Council President WFH/TM/jt S:\AGENDAS-MINUTES-PACKETS-PRESENTATIONS-ATT&EXH\Committee-Minutes\2020\10-27-2020 CCW Minutes.wpd Attachments Attachment #1 - Revised 2020 Prioritization of the City of Dover State Capital Transportation Program (CTP)

ATTACHMENT #1 Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of October 27, 2020 TO: Councilman Ralph Taylor, Chair Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee FROM: David Hugg DATE: October 5, 2020 SUBJ: 2020 REVISED LIST – TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS This list is a recommended revision to 2020 Transportation Projects Priorities originally approved by CCOW/Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee on September 29. The changes are the result of ongoing conversations about the status of the projects with both the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and DelDOT. These would have brought forward at the recent discussion, but technical difficulties prevented discussion at that time. The revisions primarily reflect some additional updating and correction of information. I am recommending a possible re-ranking as a result of better data. Changes are shown in blue. CITY OF DOVER REVISED 2020 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 1. Garrison Oak Connector Road Garrison Oak Business and Technology Center (GOBTC) is a 385-acre tract zoned IPM-2 (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone-Technology Center) and is the only site in the City to be zoned as such. It has been identified by the City as an ideal location for large technology/green industry firms. An amendment to the zoning ordinance (2019) expanded the list of permitted uses to allow warehousing, logistics and distribution activities as well. Dover City Council desires that DelDOT provide a direct access to State Route 1 via a connector road from White Oak Road to Route 8. While the State discourages growth east of State Route 1, this tract is acknowledged by both the City of Dover and the State of Delaware as the only large- scale developable land east of State Route 1 in the City of Dover. A June 2017 study of the project (the Garrison Oak Traffic Study), determined that constructing a connector road was not justified as of 2018, based on the current uses and development in the park. However, an Alignment Study to determine the feasibility and location of a future road connection is justified given current and potential development interests. The Park is an important economic development asset for the City and the County. Utilization of GOBTC is restricted by the lack of good access to SR1. As additional development occurs in the business park its priority for construction will be shown as appropriate. Additional recent planning associated with a Dover Freight Management Study suggests that not only this project but an extension of it south to connect Route 8 to S. Little Creek Road near Horsepond Road would be desired to facilitate

further expansion of the County Air Cargo Facility and proposed employment zone depicted in both the City and County Comprehensive Plans. Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades/ Route 8 East/West Corridor Plan Improvements Prior project listings have evolved to include two related but separate projects within this single listing. Both projects flow from various studies of the Route 8 Corridor. For clarity, these should be separated and listed as two projects with priority set by readiness to proceed. 2 Scarborough Road/Route 8 Corridor Improvements The project includes intersection improvements at Route 8/Route 15, which are already in planning, design and ROW acquisition and involve added turn and through lanes. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2021. The Route 8 Corridor Design Study (2008) also identified several improvements along the Route 8 corridor that would improve safety, better manage access, reduce congestion and provide improved traffic flow. While improvements complementary to this corridor (POW-MIA Parkway and Senator Bikeway, for example) address north/south movements, continued development on the west side of the City impacts the capacity and operation of this roadway. The MPO has been asked to further study the section of Route 8 from Kenton Road west beyond Mifflin Road. 3 Kenton Road Corridor Upgrades The project includes full roadway development with drainage, shoulders, travel lanes, bike lanes, and other actions. Kenton Road work has also begun with planning, design and ROW acquisition. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2022. It is budgeted at $27.3 million. The Kenton Road Corridor project includes road improvements and sidewalks to improve traffic flow and bicycle/pedestrian safety. It is critical to improving the approach to the City from the northwest where new residential areas within and outside the City are being built. 4. College Road Corridor Upgrades (Kenton Road to McKee Road) This project includes road improvements and sidewalks in the heavily traveled College Road corridor. It is a key east-west linkage from northwest residential areas to commercial corridors and Delaware State University. Recent development in this area includes apartments and a rehabilitation hospital near the College Road/McKee Road Intersection. Potential improvements in this project include new pavement sections, sidewalks, shoulders, a closed drainage system, bicycle lanes, lighting and other improvements. Planning and design is scheduled for FY23 with ROW to be acquired in FY25-26. It is budgeted at $4.25 million. 5. Sidewalks within the walk zone of the new Dover High School Critical gaps in the sidewalk system near Dover High School remain, including along Mifflin Road and along Route 8 on the south side from Mifflin Road west. This project also addresses the continuation of the Senator Bikeway and the recommendations from the Capital Gateway Study. The City is very concerned about public safety in this area and believes it deserves to be included

in the CTP and funded at the earliest opportunity. This project is ongoing and funded through a statewide sidewalk safety improvement program. 6. West Street Improvements from North Street to the Transit Center This project is along the western edge of the Downtown Development District and would improve traffic flow, safety and access to the transit system serving the Downtown and the City. It would also provide an opportunity for multi-modal linkages to be improved. West Street has become an important connection for the DART transit service in the City but has not been improved to reflect the standards necessary to meet this use. Part of these improvements were achieved in 2018 with the completion of a multi-use path along the east side of West Street. The construction of the new Dover Post Office along West Street increases the importance of this project. It is budgeted at $1.3 million with ROW acquisition in FY 23 and construction beginning in FY25. 7. US13 Service Roads/Scarborough Road This project would create a collector distributor (CD) service road parallel to US 13 from Leipsic Road to Scarborough Road, and a set of local access roads providing economic benefits to the Dover Mall and a proposed adjacent commercial complex. This project is part of the US Route 13 Circulation Study. In adherence to the State’s Corridor Capacity Preservation Program, the addition of service roads would decrease traffic on US 13/DuPont Highway by having more local traffic use the service roads instead. The project also reflects the corridor’s continued growing role as a destination for commerce, employment, and community activities, and its lessened importance as a high-speed through travel route compared to State Route 1. Preliminary engineering is scheduled for FY22-23, ROW acquisition in FY24-25 with construction thereafter, although economic considerations could delay timing. It may include a southbound toll exit from SR1 to the vicinity of the Mall. Construction includes consideration of private toll supported funding totaling $33.1 million. 8. US 13 Sidewalk Construction Construction of multi-use paths along US 13 continues to be a priority. Construction of sidewalks is required when properties are developed or redeveloped, but significant sections of the sidewalk system are either in deteriorated condition or missing. Examples include Public Safety Boulevard to the Puncheon Run Connector and White Oak Road to College Road. A 2019 sidewalk project built by DelDOT completed a sidewalk/path from Townsend Boulevard to Leipsic Road on the east side of US 13. This project is ongoing and funded through a statewide sidewalk safety improvement program. 9. Route 8/Hazelettville Road Connector This is a north/south access road that was identified in the Route 8 Concept Plan and Operations Study. This connection will encourage economic development and provide transportation alternatives in this heavily traveled corridor. The connector road proposal incorporated the existing Dover High Drive and extended south on the west side of the Village of Cannon Mills, however DelDOT advises that much of the proposed ROW is in Agricultural Land Preservation with strong

landowner opposition so an alternative connecting Commerce Way (Enterprise Park) to Route 8 near the Modern Maturity Center is being examined. It is budgeted at $2.5 million with construction beginning in 2025.. 10. Kings Highway/Route 13 Intersection Improvements The intersection of Kings Highway/White Oak Road and US Route 13 needs improvements to meet an acceptable level of service (now functioning at LOS E). Extensive new commercial development (Capital Station Shopping Center, Lidl grocery store, and other commercial facilities) are being constructed south of the intersection which will add traffic and access burdens on these roads. Because of the multi-use paths to be constructed along with this commercial development, pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements will be needed as part of the intersection upgrade as well. A consultant and DelDOT are studying this intersection to determine improvements needed. This project is a recommendation of the City. 11._Loockerman Street/Forest Street Intersection This project was requested by the City to help spur redevelopment activities in the Downtown Development District while also improving traffic circulation and safety. It was identified as a needed improvement through the Restoring Central Dover Study and the Westside Redevelopment Study conducted in 2001. It is also complementary to the recommendations of the Capital Gateway Study addressing the Forest Street/Route 8 corridor. It would result in improved traffic circulation, a more pedestrian-friendly zone at the railroad crossings and create a new “gateway” into the Downtown. Because of opposition to the intersection design option (roundabout), work on this project is being deferred and no funding is allocated in the CTP at this time. 12. Crawford Carroll Avenue Extension This project reflects the continuing growth of Delaware State University, commercial development in the area, and future development possibilities involving the Dover Mall and adjoining properties. The project was proposed to continue the improved right-of-way of Crawford Carroll Avenue from West Rustic Lane in a southerly direction to the site where HomeGoods and PetSmart are located and then connect to US Route 13 via a signalized intersection. It would provide access between the DSU Learning and Living Commons facility and the main campus as an alternate to using US 13. DelDOT has expressed concern about the feasibility of the original proposal, however, the City requests that service road connections on the west side of US 13 continue to be addressed even if the original design should not be achievable. This project has been removed from the most recent DelDOT Capital Transportation Plan (FY 21-FY 26 Spending Plan).

Monthly Report September 2020 Office of City Assessor

,-----I-r----- - - -- I~ ,-----,---I_ - -_ - - -I Number of Deeds Stamped for Transfer Tax Dollar Amount for the Month of Sept. 2019/2020 the Month of Sept. 2019/2020 39 35 $200 40 Thousands 25 24 $113 30 $93 20 14 $100 $37$36 8 $0$23 10 0 0 3 0 0 ~,._ 202 0 $0 x"'-<o v.."'-<o •~ - $0 $0 ~4. • 2020 • 2019 x"'-<o v.."'-<o •~ ~4. n· e> 00 e> 00 e,~ ~ ~ n· ~o ~e, ~~ ~o ~e, ~~ 1><::' <-<J n· ~o 1><::' '-.i n· ~e, ~o '-.i ~e, r---,.-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--=.- - ,----,:.: .: .: .: .: .: .: .: .: .: .-: .-: .-: .-: .-: .-: .-: .-: .-: .-: .-: .-: .-: .-: .: . .---~ First Time Buyer for the Month Sept. 2019/2020 Realty 40 of Sept. 2019/2020 39 35 I I Property Sales in Dollars Received Prior to Recording $8 $6 $6 I 25 24 $8 $5 Millions 30 • Res. Non‐First $6 Time Buyers $4 $0 $2 $0 $0 • 202 20 $2 0 • Res. First Time $0 10 Buyers 0 2020 2019 Major Updates July ‐ 20 Aug ‐ 20 Sept ‐ 20 $297,271,900 Assessment Change (Increase due to $6,137,600 $3,554,800 Revaluation) Residential Sales Ratio Report Sales in Study Total Assessed Total Sale Price Ratio PRD Value 48 $8,225,100 $9,417,714 0.87 1.452 Ratio – Assessed Value divided by Sale Price. PRD – Mean – A PRD above 1.03 tends to indicate assessment regressivity – high valued properties are under appraised relative to low valued properties. A PRD below .98 tends to indicate assessment progressivity – high valued properties are relatively over appraised.

Points of Interest Scanning & Filing ‐ All new deeds are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All appeal documents and correspondence are being scanned and attached to the CAMA software for easy retrieval. ‐ All old property record cards are being scanned and indexed into DocuWare.

OCT 27, 2020 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 1 08:12 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR ED05-056.20-01-23.00 18 R10 169 MAPLE GLEN DR 1 5 2003 2 3148 B AV 278,500 15-SEP-20 350,000 .80 ED05-066.12-02-20.00 3 R10 102 PORTRUSH CT 1 5 2003 2 2830 A- AV 309,700 16-SEP-20 365,000 .85 ED05-067.00-03-07.00- 6 R50 11 SESKINORE CT 0 20 2020 2 1842 B- AV 215,200 29-SEP-20 214,000 1.01

OCT 27, 2020 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 2 08:12 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR 014 ED05-067.11-01-44.00 10 R10 910 WILSON DR 1 14 1971 1 2020 C AV 166,100 29-SEP-20 205,000 .81 ED05-067.11-01-51.00 10 R10 913 WILSON DR 1 5 1969 2 1939 C AV 182,600 11-SEP-20 210,000 .87 ED05-067.12-04-17.00 8 R10 50 REPRESENTATIVE LN 1 13 2015 3 2144 B- AV 195,600 08-SEP-20 245,000 .80 ED05-067.13-02-27.00 3 R10 24 BELLRIVE CT 1 5 1973 2 1924 C+ AV 200,300 11-SEP-20 235,000 .85 ED05-067.14-01-12.00 18 R10 223 OAKMONT DR 1 5 1976 2 2099 B- GD 227,300 29-SEP-20 275,000 .83 ED05-067.15-04-20.00 10 R10 821 WOODCREST DR 1 5 1966 2 1880 C GD 179,400 10-SEP-20 190,250 .94 ED05-067.17-04-25.00 3 R10 126 SWEETGUM DR 1 6 1993 2 2166 B- AV 220,400 11-SEP-20 252,000 .87 ED05-067.20-01-31.00 10 R10 539 PEAR ST 1 5 1963 2 1440 C+ AV 158,300 11-SEP-20 199,900 .79 ED05-067.20-02-07.00 10 R10 539 CAROL ST 1 14 1954 1 1120 C AV 125,300 16-SEP-20 126,000 .99 ED05-068.09-01-44.00 8 R10 118 OVERLOOK PL 1 8 1997 2 2152 B- AV 189,800 17-SEP-20 300,000 .63 ED05-068.13-01-04.14 100 R50 28 CHATHAM CT 1 13 1984 2 2240 B- AV 135,600 29-SEP-20 130,000 1.04 ED05-068.13-01-04.51 100 R50 101 CHATHAM CT 1 13 1988 2 1470 B- AV 119,000 21-SEP-20 98,000 1.21 ED05-068.15-05-10.00 6 R10 219 TEA PARTY TRL 0 13 2020 2 1496 B- AV 180,500 08-SEP-20 217,988 .83 ED05-068.15-05-11.00 6 R10 217 TEA PARTY TRL 0 13 2020 2 1496 B- AV 178,900 02-SEP-20 217,859 .82 ED05-068.19-02-29.00 6 R10 121 TEAK CT 1 8 1998 2 1596 C AV 152,000 17-SEP-20 167,777 .91 ED05-068.19-02-44.00 6 R10 219 SHADYBROOK DR 1 8 1997 2 1640 C AV 158,100 30-SEP-20 180,000 .88 ED05-068.19-02-59.00 6 R10 42 ACACIA PL 1 8 1998 2 1640 C AV 153,600 10-SEP-20 172,400 .89 ED05-068.19-05-72.00 14 R10 50 NICHOLAS DR 1 13 2010 2 1998 C+ GD 198,300 12-SEP-20 240,000 .83 ED05-076.03-01-17.00 14 R10 48 QUILLEN ST 1 8 2006 2 1855 C+ AV 166,300 25-SEP-20 187,000 .89 ED05-076.05-02-47.00 14 R10 5 BRIARWOOD CT 1 5 1987 2 2133 C GD 208,600 22-SEP-20 193,800 1.08 ED05-076.05-04-01.058 102 R50 39 PAR HAVEN DR 1 20 1978 1 1008 C- AV 46,700 16-SEP-20 30,000 1.56 ED05-076.05-06-24.00 14 R10 28 HEATHERFIELD WAY 1 8 1992 2 1480 C+ GD 153,400 14-SEP-20 181,500 .85 ED05-076.06-02-01.00- 103 R50 12 HARLECH HALL 1 20 1973 1 939 B GD 63,200 18-SEP-20 110,000 .57

OCT 27, 2020 CITY OF DOVER PAGE: 3 08:12 AM SALES RATIO REPORT CA324 PARID NBHD LUC ADDRESS UNITS STYLE YRBLT STORIES SFLA GRADE CDU TOTAL APPR SALE DT PRICE ASR 833 ED05-076.06-02-83.00 2 R10 403 COLD SPRING PL 1 13 1987 2 1040 C- AV 113,800 11-SEP-20 123,000 .93 ED05-076.06-07-60.00- 104 R50 1218 AFTON CT 1 20 1984 1 967 C+ GD 87,100 28-SEP-20 110,000 .79

CITY COUNJCIL COM~UNJITY ENJHANJCEMENJT fUNJD REPORT SEPTEMBER 2020

CITY COUNCIL - FY 20/21 Page 1 of 3 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND JULY 1, 2020 - NOVEMBER 4, 2020 100-10-12-99-000-53037 Current Balance - $22,650.00 COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUND - $2,500 FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER PER DISTRICT AND $5,000 FOR THE AT-LARGE COUNCIL MEMBER. THE PURPOSE OF THE BUDGETED AMOUNT $25,000.00 FUND IS TO ALLOW MEMBERS TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDS TO A SMALL PROJECT OR COMMUNITY NEEDS IN EACH DISTRICT. TOTAL $25,000.00 COUNCIL P.O. #/ TOTAL YEAR TO DATE SPONSOR VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE # CHARGES DATE BALANCE 07/01/20 Anderson P.R.I.D.E Councilman Anderson authorized the Email from $250.00 $250.00 $24,750.00 designation of $250.00 of his community David enhancement funds to the House Of Pride for Anderson installation of a handicap ramp dated 06/30/2020 and letter from Marion Lott, P.R.I.D.E, dated 06/30/2020 07/01/20 Anderson Inner City Cultural Councilman Anderson authorized the Email from $1,000.00 $1,250.00 $23,750.00 League designation of $1000.00 of his community David enhancement funds to the Inner City Cultural Anderson League for their performance arts program dated 06/30/2020 and letter from Katrina Stroud, ICCL, dated 06/30/2020 08/12/20 Anderson Team Rubicon Councilman Anderson authorized the Email from $350.00 $1,600.00 $23,400.00 designation of $350.00 of his community David enhancement funds to Team Rubicon for Anderson Emergency Management Meal dated 08/12/2020 11/04/20 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-21 .qpw

CITY COUNCIL - FY 20/21 Page 2 of 3 08/21/20 Anderson Demco Inc. Councilman Anderson authorized the Email from $150.00 $1,750.00 $23,250.00 designation of $150.00 of his community David enhancement funds to Demco Inc. for back to Anderson school supplies dated 08/19/2020 and letter from Desiree Wilson, Demco, dated 08/17/2020 08/21/20 Cole Team Rubicon Councilman Cole authorized the designation of Email from $500.00 $2,250.00 $22,750.00 $500.00 of his community enhancement funds Scott Cole to Team Rubicon for Emergency dated Management Meal 08/21/2020 09/16/20 Neil Central Delaware Councilman Neil authorized the designation of Email from $100.00 $2,350.00 $22,650.00 Habitat for $100.00 of his community enhancement funds Fred Neil Humanity to CDHFH dated 09/07/2020 and letter from Dylan Grimes CDHFH dated 09/16/2020 $2,350.00 $22,650.00 $2,350.00 $22,650.00 $2,350.00 $22,650.00 $2,350.00 $22,650.00 11/04/20 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-21 .qpw

CITY COUNCIL - FY 20/21 Page 3 of 3 Budgeted District Council Sponsor YTD Expenditures Balance Amount $5,000.00 At-Large Slavin $0.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 1st District Lindell $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 1st District Vacant $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2nd District Hare $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2nd District Taylor $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3rd District Cole $500.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 3rd District Neil $100.00 $2,400.00 $2,500.00 4th District Anderson $1,750.00 $750.00 $2,500.00 4th District Sudler $0.00 $2,500.00 TOTAL $2,350.00 $22,650.00 11/04/20 S:\BUDGETS\Coun-21 .qpw

CITY MANAGER’S MONTHLY REPORT September 2020

Blank Page

City of Dover Customer Services Department FY 2021 FY 2020 M•Jor Procram Update, Sep 2020 Sep 2019 ottferente Vea r-to-Date Year-to-Date ur Nurnbl•r Cu!:tOflll'r s S(.•IVl•d u ,1; 1 1 1,901 !:>,.~:>U $ n ,;1; / 9,lUl Final nills ~ o~ .',.',8 (fiJ) s 1/i? 1 1,F! 11 b l irnalt:d Hill~ 11 b WI '.l $ b8U b3 ~1 P?.n.:1hi?.~ Poi.v?.d $ 6,0S? i~.O.' i7) $ - $ 1<1,o~g E.~ensions of Credit - Amount Extended $ 177,159 s 169,354 7,80~ s 643, 127 $ 435,056 1::!. 1lancc I r an-:.for -:. $ ':!1,8U~ $ 1/,.18 4,':>91 $ :,b,910 $ 119,B/ Utility Collections s 13,879 s 23,G08 {9,730} s ·1 0,958 s 109,28~ M i:.<:0llaricou'.: Hilling~ s 1; ; ,':!1; $ 41,911 11, ;~4·~ $ 4 14,148 s ';;99,b41 Taxes Levied s R,.',9.'i,70 9 $ 9GR,.J.',1 7,r.J 7 ,.1:)R $ , ..1,.1 0 ) ,7.'ii' $ 1.1 ,;,7,1, JA!i 1::!illinp, Adju-:.tmcnts. s 14,554 s - 14,;;4 $ 30.489 $ (12,901) To,al Taxes Collecred $ 7,071,~g~ $ 1 ;,;,,;:c,s 6,g4g3qi; $ 1 , ,8q4,670 $ B ,4 1S,478 Iaxe-: Oulslcmdine s 1:538/ :i71 s 8451957 G92,Gl 4 s 1,538,571 s 845,9~7 Writ~ Off R?.q u?.~t $ $ 8,898 (8,898) $ =>.. ~o ~ s 1U:>,8~b Disconnect Summarv Re pon '>'cf t:u,:;tt:ut '!G ot IW I St:ul l ct.11 l>ly~Av,1il:ible to !it'll 1 ';IJ;; :IJ;i n,11 ':1:l~ ,.~ N iw 1,: !1:."i :JU~ O f't , 1' ,~?i :II;')( 1,ll'I 11:1 ?::l.% ~....~ Fr h )(I ?:':".'; ~vi o/, M,lr XI -;e:{.;; , ,.;; ,\nr XI I.I'~ "" . M ,w XJ 114 l11n XI "' (~ lul XI ~S% ct.% ,tu ,.. :i., ?:':"6 ~•1'-i .r;r- .. ~:.~ ,$1", '"' :lt;,-1 I I. O\t •I " N tl'l~l!: n 0 11:\'•19 hi J•n•ll'J " l tl.,-~ ,_,, ••:o,' • .. .. -:m ~ r.1,,-.:m' ' Juu•ro Jul•ll'.I' M AoJ,l· l") :lts,-:l AYl:-1.liC Ao:t1J11U\~t:ut • ,, ·-· >, .,r. ;,; .'ii ., ,; :. l'l=:1 i>sv St ;,-1! ·M " " r t 1.,-2e M, 1-20 M,,~20 ' ' '""" Dt v-H J•n•!O A111·20 Ju11·2'0 Jul-20 ~ -20 StV-l'I AYo: ftlAO: Al.'tUIII IW Av, ils!Jlt h t Cul Pt 1 0-y ,. ,t( ~:: ~~ s, •• ,, .'i) I 1 ;.; ,;n " ~u 1' /17'1 '' s '' 52 .1=1;:- " .,,u TM.al !'In l'lllel ll.al 111.J /I ii'. ', J.; ) ) <;-;,;;,; ,v., S ) J4 A IA. Vi $H~.) 1.L ',O $ Jn=t.r.r,;.-•u !\ l~ ).(.OA,.:I 1",<; ; ; .,i7 ; 1r~ ~1~.n s s '" '" ' TM-11 SM n,l..tn,11 ll~t !\ 1,'t l .';<; .t. ii:> \ 11).7 :.:.:'I) ')j)7,,,..:l,'i(I lt.'4.II Au u,al l\l~t:ut ~.. 4:.:,: .,, Tnt,11 $ nf Aftu-11 nrt $ :t:.•~. ~ :I.W i':c $ UO,-:IJ o.~l $ U -~, )U:;,1-:; ::C l 0/, )~t>.4'J $ 1; ,, r.i:,..:1:; "' ~ ,"J .:i!-0.U) '" $ $ U ll,//! ,ol 0 $ ' ~ ' $ 1):J,:i!.t-.U "' '" ~ l )U,t•) :,J:,o ~l.Ul\!YJ .:11.1 O..:lii,11110.:nl votr.....~ulll• lltil l>u.: Tnfll l ,\U n,,,u n.,u ..Rt ,\mtl< IAh r 111r,11, 1.. tnr ( JJtl'III IUJ' .U)' l'I~ A\Mfh. 1.'-'VI .~ \ ,U ,'l:.'l.) •1 Average Disconnects Note- Due to COVID-19 accounts were not disconnected beginning March 16th. This affects disconnects through July 16th. 68 58 51 53 46 52 44 46 27 27 30 32 25 26 33 36 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 27 • Average Accounts Cut Per Day • Average Accounts Available to Cut Per Day

Work Orders Processed 2,000 Finals * Initials * Check Reads * Verify Off * Medicals * Misc. 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 IIIIIIIIIIIII Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 • Series1 1,535 1,831 1,394 1,282 1493 1,327 1,235 1,204 1,167 1,493 1,645 1,458 1,451 Payment Agreements / Extensions 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ &' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ [-_I~I~I~II~I~I~Il~I~I~I Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Series1 597 449 341 481 685 524 325 149 177 310 615 500 579 CUSTOMER UTILITY PAYMENT USAGE 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Drive-Thru Over the Mail, Drop Credit Cards Bank Drafts Window Counter Box [· 2021 YTD 4,549 14,491 51,623 1,587 13,989 • 2020 YTD 6,137 11,967 58,769 771 5,880

ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT Electric Divisions System Peak Total System Load Number of New Month outages customers Dec 18 60,284 Services Dec 18 102.40 Jan 19 65,342 Aug 18 4 87 Aug 18 81 Jan 19 117.57 Feb 19 57,306 Sep 18 5 1,331 Sep 18 43 Feb 19 111.72 Oct 18 4 123 Oct 18 47 Mar 19 106.88 Mar 19 59,310 Nov 18 6 46 Nov 18 69 Apr 19 91.74 Apr 19 52,734 Dec 18 5 5 Dec 18 11 May 19 60,603 Jan 19 1 1 Jan 19 29 May 19 138.05 Feb 19 1 3 Feb 19 23 Jun 19 146.50 Jun 19 68,769 Mar 19 0 0 Mar 19 22 Jul 19 164.38 Jul 19 83,229 Apr 19 5 277 Apr 19 77 Aug 19 163.55 Aug 19 78,519 May 19 3 148 May 19 18 Sep 19 67,274 Jun 19 11 418 Jun 19 23 Sep 19 150.74 Jul 19 15 4,066 Jul 19 8 Oct 19 150.16 Oct 19 57,886 Aug 19 9 335 Aug 19 16 Nov 19 98.35 Nov 19 55,732 Sep 19 5 225 Sep 19 15 Dec 19 60,552 Oct 19 7 386 Oct 19 15 Dec 19 104.57 Nov 19 7 61 Nov 19 14 Jan 20 103.57 Jan 20 60,649 Dec 19 2 1,325 Dec 19 4 Feb 20 98.58 Feb 20 54,412 Jan 20 4 78 Jan 20 15 Mar 20 92.30 Mar 20 54,764 Feb 20 4 2,120 Feb 20 16 Apr 20 49,236 Mar 20 3 1,518 Mar 20 24 Apr 20 82.01 Apr 20 3 76 Apr 20 6 May 20 114.40 May 20 52,403 May 20 3 181 May 20 2 Jun 20 143.64 Jun 20 66,905 Jun 20 11 2,828 Jun 20 19 Jul 20 155.89 Jul 20 82,800 Jul 20 19 536 Jul 20 10 Aug 20 76,230 Aug 20 16 13,167 Aug 20 17 Aug 20 153.38 Sep 20 5 3551 Sep 20 16 Sep 20 142.05 Sep 20 61,833 Electric Monthly Outage Report The annual outage goal will be less than 295 minutes per customer, which is a Delaware Standard. This will be measured by calculating the System Average Interruption Duration Index. FY 21 YTD FY 20 FY 19 431.83 30.67 48.34 Outages Average Response Time Goal is less than 30 minutes Month Year-to-date Month Year-to-date 5 40 29 Minutes 32.06 Minutes PROGRAM UPDATES SEP 20 SEP 19 FY21 YTD Tree Trimming 278 197 515 Number of Oil Releases 0 0 1 Lost Time Accidents – All Electric Utility Divisions 0 0 1 New Services 16 15 43

Fleet & Facilities Management Monthly Report SEPTEMBER 2020 Fleet Maintenance PM Work Orders Completed: 34 Number of Tire Repairs: 18 Number of Road Repairs: 1 Other Work Orders: 81 Repair Hours: 317 Road Repair Hours: 1.5 Total Work Orders: 115 Fabrication Hours: 3 Misc. Hours: 44.5 PM Hours: 99 # Of Scheduled PM’s: 28 # Of PM’s Completed: 34 Major Program Updates SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER MEASURE 2020 2019 DIFFERENCE Fleet Maintenance - Scheduled PM 34 out of 28 43 out of 28 appointments vs completed PM’s -32.14 % 121.43 % 153.57 % (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities Maintenance Facilities - Routine work orders 13 out of 17 17 out of 19 completed within 5 days -13.00 % 76.47 % 89.47 % (Quantity and Percentage) Facilities - Emergency work orders 1 out of 1 6 out of 6 completed within 2 days 0.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % (Quantity and Percentage)

GRANT WRITER - SEPTEMBER 2020 During September, the Grant Writer performed the following duties: • Researched and contacted 40 potential funders for overall park renovations, programs within Police Department, and other potential funders • Responsible for managing the ISAIAS FEMA effort, in Kay’s absence • Responsible for the CARES/COVID Funding follow-up, in Kay’s absence • Reviewed other grants submitted by other departments to state agencies • Met bi-weekly with City Manager and Assistant City Manager • Compiled data from the Interfaith Ministerial Alliance Surveys to regarding programming in Dover Park • Assisted Assistant City Manager in determining areas that still needed debris-clean-up (in Kay’s absence) • Attended all VOAD Zoom Sessions (in Kay’s absence) Status of Major Projects, as of September 30, 2020: Project Status Grant Funder Notes Closing the digital Submitted $25,000 Private divide – Dover Foundation Public Library StoryWalk Submitted $500.00 Delaware Library Will hear back in December 2020 Association FEMA-ISAIAS Submitted FEMA Submitted all documentation to FEMA – Region III to determine if ISAIS is federal disaster CARES-COVID Submitted $45,300 CARES Managed process Accessible Researching $800,000 Private Funders Researched and spoke with potential Playground funding funders who say we must have a 501c3 (please note that opportunities until we have a 501 apply c 3 in place, chances of funding are slim) Dog Park Planning Private Funders Researched and spoke with potential funders who say we must have a 501c3 (please note that until we have a apply 501c3 in place, chances of funding are slim) Skate Park Planning $25,000 The Skatepark Can apply when the park is “shovel ready” Project, Inc. 501c3 Entity Planning

HUMAN RESOURCES September 2020 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Total Category 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Caucasian* 299 294 293 293 297 303 308 303 299 296 300 296 297 n/a Minorities* 78 77 77 78 78 77 77 76 75 78 78 78 79 n/a Hired 8 3 1 4 7 11 7 0 0 5 7 1 6 60 Terminated/Resigned/ 4 7 2 2 5 6 3 5 5 2 3 5 4 53 Retired/Other Transferred/Promoted 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 22 Jobs Posted 31 2 0 9 9 17 1 3 4 3 6 5 3 93 Workers Comp. 1 2 2 3 7 4 2 7 2 1 3 4 5 43 Injuries Workers Comp. 169 186 178 176 168 112 320 320 401 11 7 127 176 2351 Hours *351 Full-time Employees: Part-time Employees: 25 (4 Pitts Center, 1 Recreation, 15 Library, 4 Police Department, 1 Central Services) -Numbers do not reflect, temporary, seasonal, relief fire dispatchers, committee or council members. Position Hired: Administrative Assistant, (4) Motor Equipment Operator I, Fleet and Facilities Manager Transferred/Promoted: Motor Equipment Operator III, Electric Director Position Terminated/Resigned/Retired/Other: Police, Lineman 2nd Class, Lineworker Crew Leader, Inspector III Positions on Terminal Leave: Sign/Street Painter (Streets) Recruitment Information (September) Native American Black/ Hawaiian/ Two or Not Indian/ Hispanic/ Positon Total Apps In Dover Out of Dover Unknown Asian African Other More White Unknown Hispanic/ Unknown Male Female Unknown Alaskan Latino American Pacific Races Latino Native Islander Ground Worke r I 20 2 17 1 0 0 4 0 1 14 1 1 16 3 20 0 0 Laborer II - Recreation 8 1 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 0 7 1 8 0 0 Water Treatment Plant Operate 10 3 7 0 0 1 4 0 0 5 0 0 10 0 9 1 0 *Resumes come from Indeed do not always list address Open or Currently Recruiting* Open or Currently Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Recruiting by Dept. 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Electric 7 9 9 6 7 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 7 Public Works 10 10 11 11 8 8 8 8 8 7 5 5 1 Police 6 4 4 3 2 7.5 4 4 7 9 8 9 11 Water Wastewater 4 4 5 6 6 5 3 4 4 All Other Departments 16.5 18.5 18 17 15.5 13.5 11 12.5 14.5 14 13 16.5 15.5 Totals 39.5 41.5 42 37 36.5 37 32 34.5 40.5 40 34 39.5 38.5 *Not used for Budgeting Purposes *Feb 2020 Updated Electric: Senior Lineman, 1st Class Lineman, (5) Groundworkers Police: (9) Police Officers, (2) Cadet (PT), Communication Operator Public Works: Sign/Street Painter Water/Waste Water: Civil Engineer, Utility Maintenance Mechanic I, Water Treatment Plant Operator I, Motor Equipment Operator II All Other Departments: Librarian I (PT), Assistant Library Director, Library Director, Customer Service Representative I, Administrative Assistant – Finance, Inspector 1 – Code Enforcement (2), Information Technology Director, Library Clerk (PT), Payroll Specialist, Assistant Controller, Laborer II (Parks), Passport Clerk (PT), Library Assistant, LAN Analyst, Inspector III – Code Enforcement, City Manager

HUMAN RESOURCES (Continued) Turnover Statistics 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Turnover % 5.57 6.75 11.00 10.91 6.02 12.05 8.68 15.36 10.33 9.66 12.71 Termination Turnover % 0.27 1.08 0.29 1.47 0.57 0.28 0.54 1.92 1.36 0.54 1.48 Resignation Turnover % 2.12 4.05 5.21 5.01 2.29 7.56 6.24 7.41 5.98 6.17 6.80 Retirement Turnover % 3.18 1.62 5.50 4.42 3.15 4.20 1.90 4.39 2.45 2.68 4.14 Other - - - - - - - 1.65 0.54 0.27 0.30 2012 Healthcare cost sharing implemented; 2013 Healthcare cost sharing implemented for DOE 2016 RIF in Economic Development; 2018 RIF in Electric *2019, Percentages update in January 2020 Average Employees 2010 2011 2012* 2013* 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Number of Employees Separating from 21 25 38 37 21 42 32 56 38 36 43 Service Average Number of Full-time Employees 362 356 333 325 331 333 340 337 340 346 313 Average Number of Part-time Employees 16 15 12 14 18 24 28 28 28 26 25 * Healthcare cost sharing implemented Workers Compensation Cost Calendar Year 2020 Grounds $33 Department Water/Wastewater • $2 Sanitation I $2 Life Safety I $1 Metering $15 Power Plant I $2 Police $111 Stormwater $39 City Manager $21 Total Cost (In thousands) Total: $226,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES Service Requests Resolved 60 53 54 52 49 50 44 41 41 42 40 38 38 38 40 30 30 27 27 27 22 22 23 23 22 21 20 17 17 13 15 10 0 •Requests Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 • Completed Programming Requests Completed 150 120120 100 44 44 50 31 32 33 33 21 21 27 26 22 22 15 15 19 19 12 12 10 10 11 11 9 9 0 • Requests Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 • Completed Page Views - City of Dover Web Page 40,000 35,000 30,000 Pages Viewed 25,000 36,316 34,015 32,907 20,000 30,253 31,316 28,527 28,293 28,153 25,318 26,882 25,888 26,057 23,716 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Noteworty: Pandemic - COVID-19. Tyler ERP Phase 2 (HR/Payroll) working with Kronos providing and converting files Tyler Phase 4 Still doing sessions. New IT Director selected. Rehman Ali will start 10/12/2020. New GIS Web server working.

Monthly Report for September 2020 LIBRARY CLOSED DUE TO COVID-19 VIRUS Highlighted Virtual Programs: D01f[E R "In Harmony" Virtual Concert - Jim Rezac 9/4 Great Decisions Virtual Programs 9/9, 9/16, 9/23, 9/30 159 Clicks/Views 35 Clicks/Views PUBLIC LIBRARY Code Club Virtual Programs 9/15, 9/22, 9/29 17 Clicks/Views Total Items Checked Out: 8,122 VIRTUAL Programs: Offered Views/Clicks E-books: 3,713 Adult 8 199 New Library Cards: 93 Teen 3 3 Children 14 199 Library Card Holders: 29,212 Job Center 0 0 Service Area Population: 63,984 Visitors: Curbside Pick-Up 1,562 Passport Services: 30 Income Received: $1,042.50 Meeting Rooms Usage: 0 Computer Users: 0 Wireless Users: 159 Items Loaned to/Received from Other Libraries: 9,793

Parks & Recreation and Grounds September 2020 Monthly Report Parks & Recrea on Highlights  Parks Administra on/Maintenance Building is in final inspections. Staff is expected begin moving in next month.  Parks & Playground Improvements/ORPT Grant 19‐187 is con nuing. The presenta on from the Coastal Design Group is expected in October for the beach project at Silver Lake.  John W. Pi s Recrea on Center served as a poling place for the Delaware Primary Elec on and a pre‐bid mee ng for Central Services. COVID19 protocols were followed to ensure everyone’s safety and well being.  Spring & Summer Concert Series hosted River & Rhodes an acous c duo. Our only weather cancella on for the season was our ever popular Honeycombs concert. We tried to reschedule them from September 10, extending our season, however once again the weather just did not cooperate. Our apprecia on goes out to Shore United Bank for their financial support of the 2020 series.  Dover Park was the home to a new adult Flag Football League. Kicking off in September, this adult league has brought Dover Park new visitors from around Delaware out to Dover Park on Sunday mornings. The league hosted nine (9) teams. We look forward to con nuing this league in the future. COVID19 protocols were established to keep players, officials and spectators safe.  Fall Youth Soccer League kicked off with a great start! Our league coordinator, Steve Pickering was able to establish COVID19 protocols to keep players, officials and their parents/guests safe for prac ces and games. We are pleased that 129 youth par cipated for the fall season which ends in late October. Adult Flag Football Adult Flag Football Program Par cipants FYTD FYTD Sept. 20 Sept. 20 & Park Rentals 21 20 General Recrea on 19 77 108 204 Schu e Park Nature Trail Open Gym 141 321 228 601 Bldg./Field/Pavilions 5 29 n/a n/a Schu e Park Nature Trail September (outdoor) League Recreation Revenue Breakdown Programming Par cipant Count tyH,l Ac vity Par cipants Spectators Loca on FY21 Adult Football 136 34 Dover Park • • General Recre.ation • Lll!lagues • e-.,u .. ,.s. ....iJ • ,... !A Youth Soccer 662 924 Schu e Park • Bldg.{Field/Pavihons September 2019 FY20 September 2020 FY21 General Recrea on 1,418.00 General Recrea on 181.00 Leagues 5,412.00 Leagues 3294.00 Park Rentals/Permits 480.00 Bldg./Field/Pavilions 260.00 Trips 600.00 Youth Connec ons 1,432.00 Adult Flag Football

Grounds Division Monthly Report September 2020 Arborist Crew Completed Trees Trimmed 87 Trees Removed 24 Root Prune 0 Stumps Removed 6 Trees Planted 0 Arborist Crew: ‐ Crews Continue to work on trimming street trees. Beautification Crew: ‐ Started removing plants from flower beds. ‐ Began preparing beds for upcoming tulips. Mowing Crew ‐ Mowing route are on schedule. Litter Removal: ‐ Litter is being picked up on City properties as per the weekly schedule. ‐ Litter person has been diligent in the reporting of destruction in City parks. ‐ Total Trash Cans Collected 158. Miscellaneous: ‐ Completed 4 yard repairs. ‐ Bush hogged wells. ‐ All Grounds Division staff attended Defensive Driving class.

September 2020 Procurement & Inventory Report Measure FY 2021 FY 2020 DIFFERENCE Issue Effectiveness – How often the FY 2020 (To date) FY 2019 (Total) warehouse has what the departments [579/(579+97)]*100 [2,292/(2,292+156)]*100 -7.98% need when it’s needed. 85.65% 93.63 % [issues / (issues + back orders)] * 100 Turn Over Rate – Indicates that the material stocked is the material being 0.96 Turnovers per year 0.74 Turnovers per year 0.22 Turnovers per year used. (2018-2019 Goal 1 per year) WITHOUT TRANSFORMERS BID REQUESTING COMMODITY TERM STATUS as of October 1, 2020 NUMBER DEPARTMENT Elevated Water Storage Tank 21-0001WW 10 Years Water/WasteWater Forwarded to Water/Wastewater on 9/15/2020. Maintenance West Street Flooding Feasibility Study 21-0002PW One Time Public Works Forwarded to Public Works on 9/9/2020 East Lake Garden Drainage 21-0003PW One Time Public Works Forwarded to Public Works on 9/9/2020 Improvements Mirror Lake Drainage Basin 21-0004PW One Time Public Works Forwarded to Public Works on 9/11/2020 Improvements HVAC Design and Install - Electric 21-0005CS One Time Central Services Forwarded to Facilities on 9/17/2020 Admin HVAC Design and Install - City Hall 21-0006CS One Time Central Services Forwarded to Facilities on 9/17/2020 HVAC Design and Install - Warehouse 21-0007CS One Time Central Services Forwarded to Facilities on 9/18/2020 Scada Equipment Technology Upgrade 21-0009WW One Time Water/WasteWater Bid opening scheduled for October 21, 2020 @ 2:00 pm College Rd Wastewater Pumping 21-0010WW One Time Water/WasteWater RFP opening scheduled for October 15, 2020 @ 2:00 pm Station Wire and Cable Term Contract 1-2020COD One Year Central Services Bid opening scheduled for October 13, 2020 @ 2:00 pm PME-11 Switchgear for Stock 21-0011CS One Time Central Services Forwarded to Electric on 9/30/2020. Transformer Term Contract 2-2020CS Two Year Central Services Bid opening scheduled for October 14, 2020 @ 2:00 pm Chiller, Cooling Tower, and Pump 21-0012PD One Time Police Department RFP opening scheduled for October 27, 2020 @ 2:00 pm Replacement for Police Department Enclosure & Fiberglass Pads Term 3-2020CS Two Year Central Services Bid opening scheduled for October 19, 2020 @ 2:00 pm Contract Update to the City of Dover Water 21-0013WW One Time Water/WasteWater RFP opening scheduled for October 28, 2020 @ 2:00 pm Master Plan FUEL USE FY 2021 TO DATE FY 2020 TO DATE STOCK WITH OVER 60 MONTH SUPPLY (5 YEARS) Unleaded: 35,299 gallons 36,395 gallons Electric: $ 393,633.09 247 Line Items Diesel: 21,080 gallons 19,284 gallons Water: $ 13,679.71 31 Line Items Dollars Spent: $72,567.30 $104,524.62 General: $ 22,266.11 92 Line Items Total: $ 429,578.91 370 Line Items Purchase Orders for Stock by Fund Issues from Stock by Fund FY 2021 TO DATE FY 2020 TO DATE FY 2021 TO DATE FY 2020 TO DATE Electric: $451,290.45 $136,369.23 Electric: $406,888.19 $178,467.74 Water: $1,724.36 $25,314.38 Water: $41,498.98 $35,745.25 Wastewater: $0.00 $166.82 Wastewater: $1,555.76 $786.37 General: $33,970.01 $42,444.25 General: $33,765.32 $30,939.45 Total: $486,984.82 $204,294.68 *Total: $485,699.58 $268,491.73 Warehouse Stock Money Spent for Postage/Postal Services FY2021 FY2020 FY 2021 TO DATE FY2020 TO DATE Total Dollar Value: $1,635,982.33 $1,785,085.48 $45,704.13 $41,514.92 Total Line Items: 1,098 1,118 * Total of Issues from Stock by Fund includes Issues from Sale from Stock (SS) and Electric Returns (ER).

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SEPTEMBER 2020 MONTHLY REPORT GIS GIS PROJECT HOURS • Create • Data Requests • Printing • Technical Support • Updates • Configure 3% 19% 40% 6% 8% 24% GIS PROJECT HOURS Other City-Wide DWW DPW Tax Mayor IT Cust. Service Dover PD City Manager City Clerk - Planning & Insp. Library Parks & Rec Electric 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 • GIS Project Hours

SANITATION MONTHLY REFUSE (TONS) AUG 20 / PARTIAL SEP 20 - BULK BRUSH DIVERTED TO SCHUTTE PARK DUE TO HURRICANE ISAIAS. • Bulk • Rear • Automated 1019.95 945.19 970.81 972.27 952.91 910.54 851.34 884.8 822.79 821.86 786.87 670.09 689.03 203.1 124.71 190.58 95.73 132.29 117.53 129.15 66.89 108.45 203.01 178.39 80.42 81.54 195.51 89.29 79.05 160.15 177.7 124.64 117.11 116.13 95.12 104.67 100.31 122.38 II II II SEP 19 OCT 19 NOV 19 II II II 11 II II DEC 19 JAN 20 79.25 FEB 20 MAR 20 APR 20 MAY 20 II II 11 11 JUN 20 JUL 20 AUG 20 SEP 20 SANITATION HOURS 600 557 528 500 418 424 400 361 362 322 305 300 200 100 0 Bulk Automated Hand Trash Yard Waste • September 19 • September 20 SANITATION SEPT 20 FYTD 20 SEPT 19 FYTD 19 Trips to DSWA Sandtown Landfill 215 672 199 600 Total Tonnage to DSWA 1,263 3,916 1,029 3,418 90-gallon Containers Delivered 62 209 44 123 300-gallon Containers Delivered 0 4 0 3 Total Man Hours Containers Delivered 29 154 30 70 CURBSIDE RECYCLING TOTAL CANS COLLECTED TOTAL ACCOUNTS WEIGHT (LBS) AVE. WEIGHT (LBS) September 2020 22,093 9,846 270,020 12.22

STREETS / STORMWATER STREETS / STORMWATER SEPTEMBER 20 FYTD 20 SEPTEMBER 19 FYTD 19 Signs Installed 6 17 8 26 Signs Repaired 16 33 5 33 Curbs Painted Yellow (ft) 0 84 218 390 New Posts Installed 13 20 2 12 Storm Catch Basins Repaired 20 28 2 12 Storm Catch Basin Repairs (hrs) 62.5 81.5 11 44 Storm Catch Basins Cleaned (l.f.) 14 29 0 1,215 Storm Catch Basin Cleaning (hrs) 17.5 29.5 0 7 Hot Mix Patching (tons) 0 0 7 67 Hot Mix Patching (hrs) 0 0 6 81 Cold Mix Patching (hrs) 7 14.5 3 13 Concrete Work (hrs) 14 38 62 104 Concrete Patching (cu.yd.) 0.31 0.31 15 22 Ditch Work (hrs) 8 8 0 0 Street and Alley Maintenance (hrs) 5 6 0 6 Street Sweeping (miles) 1,620 5,044 1,750 5,363 Street Sweeping (cu.yd.) 98 342 142 383 Leaf Collection (miles) 0 0 0 0 Leaves Collected (cu.yd.) 0 0 0 0 SEP 20 – STAFF PERIODICALLY ASSIGNED TO STORM RESPONSE AND STORM DEBRIS COLLECTION DUE TO HURRICANE ISAIAS.

CITY OF DOVER • DEPARTMENT OF WATER & WASTEWATER MONTHLY REPORT )e.,.,DQ'ol'E1l SEPTEMBER 2020 Water & Wastewater Flow Data In general, billed consumption should be less than total water production. Billed discharge is generally less than total flow to 250,000,000 county, due to inflow and infiltration. Total flow to county can be higher than total water production with a significantly higher than average rainfall occurs. 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 - Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Total Water Production Billed Consumption Total Flow to County Billed Discharge Water Production 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 - Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 • Average Daily Water Production (gal) • Peak Day Production (gal) Water & Wastewater Repairs 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Water Mains Repaired Water Services Repaired Wastewater Mains Repaired Wastewater Laterals Repaired

CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF WATER & WASTEWATER •35 MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2020 Water & Wastewater Trouble Calls Goal is to have a field response time of less than 30 minutes. Month 30 Sep-19 Oct-19 25 Nov-19 Dec-19 20 Jan-20 Feb-20 15 Mar-20 10 Apr-20 May-20 5 Jun-20 Jul-20 - Aug-20 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Sep-20 Average Field Response Time (min) Wastewater Service Requests - Water Service Requests Field Response Goal (min) 140,000 Wastewater Mains Flushed 7 Due to COVID-19, quantities were below average in April 2020 and May 2020. Due to Water System Flushing, Wastewater Flushing Month was on hold in September. Sep-19 120,000 _J Oct-19 100,000 Nov-19 Dec-19 80,000 Jan-20 Feb-20 60,000 Mar-20 Apr-20 40,000 May-20 Jun-20 20,000 Jul-20 Aug-20 - - Sep-20 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Wastewater Mains Flushed (lf) Linear (Wastewater Mains Flushed (lf)) Wastewater Mains Recorded / Manholes Cleaned 9,000 Month 8,000 Sep-19 7,000 Oct-19 Nov-19 6,000 Dec-19 5,000 Jan-20 4,000 Feb-20 Mar-20 3,000 Apr-20 •- - - - --•.---- 2,000 May-20 1,000 Jun-20 Jul-20 - • -- Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 • Wastewater Mains Recorded (lf) • Wastewater Manholes Cleaned (ea)

CITY OF DOVER DEPARTMENT OF WATER & WASTEWATER • 70 MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2020 Number of Brown Water Complaints 60 Month 50 40 30 -- Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 - - 11 - • ---===---=-··• ····•· ·•· ·:· -~ - I Jan-20 20 Feb-20 Mar-20 10 Apr-20 - ----- Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 May-20 Jun-20 (10) - Number of Brown Water Complaints Engineering Plan Review Tracking Linear (Number of Brown Water Complaints) Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Month Sep-19 12 11 11 I Goal is to review and respond to Site Plan or Subdivisions Plans within 5 business days. 7 Oct-19 Nov-19 10 Dec-19 Jan-20 8 8 Feb-20 7 Mar-20 6 6 Apr-20 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 May-20 4 3 3 3 Jun-20 2 2 2 Jul-20 2 1 1 Aug-20 0 0 0 0 0 Sep-20 - - 0 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Number of Submissions Beyond 5 days ----· Linear (Number of Submissions) Month Sep-19 Oct-19 120 100 Building Permit Review Tracking 96 Goal is to review and respond to building or plumbing permits within 5 business days 103 J Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 88 Mar-20 79 80 80 Apr-20 80 73 69 65 62 ---- ·--- ---- May-20 57 60 51 Jun-20 42 Jul-20 _:·-~---I___I_I_ I_I_-------- 40 Aug-20 Sep-20 20 4 3 2 3 2 2 4 2 3 4 2 1 2 0 Sep-19 Oct-19 - - Nov-19 Dec-19 Number Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Average Days to Respond Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Linear (Number) Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20

City Planner’s Monthly Report Department of Planning & Inspections SEPTEMBER 2020 Planning & Inspections Highlights Some Items to Call to Your Attention Construction activity in the City continues at modest levels. During September 107 Permits for all uses were issued compared to 151 Permits issued in August. Construc- tion values in September are down significantly from the previous month at $546,000 ($871,680 in August) bringing the Year-To-Date values in this Fiscal Year to just over $2.85 million. No Residential Building Permits were issued in September. Construction activity con- tinues in Patriot Village (where 5 Certificates of Occupancy were issued), in Oak Shad- ows, and in the Downtown area. A Building Permit was issued for a new garage at DelDOT’s Central District facility. Final Certificates of Occupancy were issued for Hobby Lobby, tenant fit out for the Department of Veteran Affairs at the Blue Hen Corporate Center, and for 426 Caribbean Cuisine at 1040 S. State Street. Code violations continued to increase as summer progresses and the number of cases opened was up significantly. 332 new cases were opened in September of which 184 cases involved grass and weeds violations. A total of 767 Code Inspections were undertaken in September. The City is working to abate violations at two dangerous buildings. The Planning Commission and the Historic District Commission met during September in virtual sessions. The Board of Adjustment did not meet last month. The City received $163,211 in CARES Act funding and working with the Department of Health and Social Services has dispensed 36% of funds to assist with motel vouchers, utility bill assistance, and rent subsidies for at-risk persons. In continued response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the compliance with the Gover- nor’s Declaration of a State of Emergency, the Dover City Hall Building reopened to the public in June, but access limitations continues. Most meetings of Boards and Commis- sions along with other meetings, training and workshops were completed virtually.

PROGRESS IN PICTURES 426 Caribbean Cuisine Renovations -1040 S. State St. Hobby Lobby - Renovations—1001 N. DuPont Highway

PROGRESS IN PICTURES • VA =r:-•nt d 2 VA Outpatient Clinic - Renovation at Blue Hen Corporate Center – 655 S. Bay Road Patriot Village - 5 Town House Units - 211 Tea Party Trail, 213 Tea Party Trail , 215 Tea Party Trail , 217 Tea Party Trail and 219 Tea Party Trail.

Planning & Inspections Revenue FY2021 Actual Revenue Stream FY2021 Budget (YTD) September % of Budget Business License $1,470,000 $ 1,308,286 89% Manufactured Home License $17,000 $ 10,675 63% Building Permits $450,000 $ 50,064 11% Cert. of Occupancy $10,000 $ 1,695 17% Public Occupancy $25,000 $ 375 2% Lodging House $14,000 $ 78 1% Plumbing/Heating/Air $100,000 $ 27,681 28% Rental Inspection $ 5,377 1% Fee $437,000 Miscellaneous $20,000 $ 5,885 29% Fire Protection Fees $70,000 $ 18,742 27% Code Enforcement $ 3,525 10% Fines $35,000 Vacant Building Reg. $150,000 $ 21,250 14% Total P&I Revenue $2,798,000 $ 1,453,633 52% 30-Sep-20 PERSONNEL AND TRAINING • In the continued response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the compliance with the Governor’s Declara- tion of a State of Emergency for Delaware, the Dover City Hall Building has continued in September to require certain provisions for public access. Staff continues to be in the Office daily for a regular work day. Planning Staff continues plan and permit responsibilities including accepting Plan submissions by appointment and electronically, CO inspections, conducting Meetings virtually, and managing on-going communication efforts. Other meetings, trainings, and workshops continue in a Virtual format allowing Planning Staff to participate from their computers/desks. • The September Meetings of the Boards and Commissions supported by the Planning Office again were conducted successfully in a Virtual Meeting format using the WebEx telephone/video conferencing platform. Planning Staff conducted the Planning Commission Meeting of September 21, 2020 and the Historic District Commission Meeting of September 17, 2020 in the Virtual Meeting format; there was no meeting of the Board of Adjustment in the month. • Planning Staff continues ongoing training for the Municode Meetings software system which assists in the management of Meeting Agendas and Packets; and also Staff completed Beginner or Advanced De- fensive Driving classes. • Employees in the Inspections and Planning Department attended the Basic Defensive Driving & Advanced Defensive Driving Course held on September 21-25, 2020 in the Multi-Purpose Room B at the Dover Public Library.

PLANNING OFFICE The Planning Office is part of the review process for certain types of construction activity permits (Building Permits, Sign Permits, etc.) and Certificate of Occupancy permits. For September 2020, Planning Staff was involved with review of 44 Building Permits and 8 Certificates of Occupancy permits that were issued. This activity results in a 2020 calendar year-to-date total of 579 Permits and Certificates of Occupancy thru September 2020 as compared to 2019 calendar year-to-date total of 670 Permits and COs and 2018 calen- dar year-to-date total of 852 Permits and COs. Staff also reviews new applications for Business Licenses and Rental Dwelling Permits. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 2019 Comprehensive Plan The next steps with the 2019 Comprehensive Plan focus on the Implementation Plan (Chapter 15) items for the projects, studies, code amendments, and other activities. Staff will be preparing the Final Publica- tion document. Currently, the FINAL DRAFT (12.3.2019) documents and maps are available on the Com- prehensive Plan website: https://www.cityofdover.com/2019-comprehensive-plan. Comprehensive Rezoning Project As a follow-up to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Rezoning Project must be completed by June 2021. In September, Planning Staff continued the data analysis of the Zoning Map and Map 12-1: Land Development Plan to determine potential zoning and land use category conflict and began Staff level review of conflicts found. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY • There was Building Permit issued for a manufactured home placement in Kings Cliffe MH Park. Resi- dential building construction activity also slowly continues in the Patriot Village, Oak Shadows, within the Downtown Development District area, and on several lots in other areas of the City. There contin- ue to be a significant number of fence and renovation permits issued for residential properties. • Certificates of Occupancy were issued for five (5) townhouse units in Patriot Village. • A Building Permit was issued for a new garage building at DelDOT- Central District Garage (S-20-03). • Final Certificates of Occupancy were issued to Hobby Lobby at the North Dover Shopping Center on DuPont Highway; a tenant fit-out for Department of Veterans Affairs at the Blue Hen Corporate Cen- ter; and a tenant fit-out for 426 Caribbean Cuisine at 1040 S. State Street. SEPTEMBER 2020 (FY21) TOTAL FOR FY21 New Home Permits Issued 0 7 Value of Commercial Projects $545,901.00 $2,834,481.00 Downtown Incentives (Fees $113.00 $3,774.00 Waived)

BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTIVITY Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment did not meet on September 16, 2020. The next Board of Adjustment meeting is scheduled for October 21, 2020. Historic District Commission The Historic District Commission met virtually on September 17, 2020. A number of activity reports were presented and a Special Recognition Resolution was adopted honoring the service of Joseph McDaniel (2007 -2020) on the Historic District Commission. The next Historic District Commission meeting is scheduled for October 15, 2020. Planning Commission The Planning Commission met virtually on September 21, 2020. The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October 19, 2020. The Application listed below was considered. The nomination and election of the Vice-Chairman position was completed; the Vice Chairman is Nicholas Adams with An- drea Maucher serving as Chair. A final report on appointments to the Architectural Review Oversight Sub- committee of Planning Commission was completed (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 §2.28) was given. • SB-20-02 Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC - Minor Subdivision: Eden Hill Farm TND in the Profes- sional Office, Medical & Financial District - The Planning Commission took action to approve with refer- ence to the DAC Report the proposed Subdivision Plan for property located south of W. North Street and on the east and west sides of Banning Street in the Professional Office, Medical and Financial Dis- trict component of the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) project known as Eden Hill Farm. The portion to be subdivided consists of 14.119 acres +/- to be split into three new parcels plus the residual. Lot 1 is an unimproved lot measuring 2.538 acres +/-. Lot 2 is open space consisting of pedestrian con- nections, a flag pole and landscaping and measures 1.615 acres +/-. Lot 3 measuring 2.633 acres +/- con- sists of The Center at Eden Hill, a skilled nursing facility and its associated parking. The residual is an un- improved lot measuring 7.333 acres +/-. The subject property was previously created by the approval of a Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan MI-19-07 Lands of Dover Medical Properties, LLC on October 22, 2019. The Eden Hill Farm TND: POMFD is the subject of Implementation Plan S-06-26 and associated Adminis- trative Site Plans.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM CDBG FY20 Projects • CARES Act Funding The City of Dover was awarded $163,211 in Federal Funds to assist in reducing the spread of COVID-19. The City has partnered with the Department of Health and Social Services to administer the grant that will be used for motel vouchers and rent subsidies that will service homeless persons or those at risk of becoming homeless. Thirty-six (36) percent of funds have been drawn down year-to-date were expended for motel vouchers for homeless persons and for utility payments for persons unable to pay their utility bills due to COVID-19. • Homeownership Assistance Program CDBG funds will be used to provide homeownership assistance to first-time homebuyers who purchase affordable housing in the City of Dover. Four (4) families have purchased affordable housing in the City of Dover. • Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing CDBG funds will be used to provide operations cost for the shelter. This project is under way. DIMH is also in the process of purchasing a building for its new shelter location that will be renovated with CDBG funds. • DIMH & Central Delaware Housing Collaborative CDBG funds will be used to provide operations cost for a women’s shelter. This project is underway. • Milford Housing Homeowner Rehabilitation/Emergency Home Repair Programs CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate existing owner-occupied housing in the City that is in violation of the City’s Housing Code and complete emergency home repairs to elimi- nate housing conditions that threaten the health and safety of low-income homeowners. Emergency home repairs have been completed for two (2) families. • NCALL Research Inc. CDBG funds will be used to demolish two existing homes in the Restoring Central Dover area in order to construct two affordable housing units on the vacant lots. One property is located at 49 S. Kirkwood Street and is currently under environmental review.

Code Enforcement Activity—September 2020 Case Type # cases # cases % staff initiat- % staff initiated current YTD (July ed current YTD month 2020 to month June 2021) No valid Rental Permit 2 9 50% 67% No valid Building Permit 6 21 33% 52% Tall grass and weeds 184 283 92% 84% Unregistered vehicle 6 9 67% 55% Abandoned vehicle 10 16 90% 81% Annual Housing Inspection 3 15 0% 0% Property Maintenance 33 131 48% 43% Exterior Electric Termination 2 4 0% 0% Dover Code of Ordinances 57 108 77% 67% Zoning 1 5 100% 80% Total Cases Opened 332 671 Total # of Inspections For 767 Month Dangerous Buildings, Vacant Buildings & Demolitions  620 N. Governors Avenue - Condemned two outbuildings (sheds) and overgrowth on the property. The dwelling is vacant. We will be abating the violations.  316 Cold Spring Place- Obtaining prices to abate exterior violations, repair wall siding, exterior stairs, replacing broken louvers, and exterior painting.  Vacant Buildings currently registered - 164

Building Inspections & Licensing Summary Sept. 2019— Sept. 2020– Current June 2021 Sept. 2019 June 2020 PERMITTING AND LICENSING Permits Issued Sept. (2020) Sept. (2019) FY 21 FYTD 21 FY20 FYTD 20 Administrative Permit 1 14 0 5 Building Addition/Renovation Permits 17 80 37 94 Building Permits 14 53 17 45 Demolition Permits 1 6 1 9 Fence Permits 15 56 15 44 Fire Prevention Permits 4 19 4 24 Mechanical Permits 26 84 22 84 Plumbing Permits 16 52 21 76 Sign Permits 13 29 8 34 Swimming Pool Permits 0 2 2 3 Subtotal 395 418 Business Licenses 111 1577 133 1810 Merchant Licenses 31 276 24 318 Contractor Licenses 136 962 117 1004 Subtotal 2815 3132 Lodging House Licenses 0 1 0 1 Public Occupancy 11 17 20 50 Rental Dwelling 19 69 11 52 Subtotal 87 103 Manufactured Homes 42 232 57 228 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Inspections Sept. (2020) Sept. (2019) FY 21 FYTD 21 FY20 FYTD 20 Building (Inspections/CBI/Site Meetings) 279 672 135 474 Plumbing/Mechanical 254 514 109 361 Certificate of Occupancy 8 20 10 33

Fire Marshal’s Office—At a Glance The Fire Marshal’s Office investigated two (2) incidents during the month of September. All staff members went to the defensive driving class. Our office is conducting annual fire and life safety inspections at businesses that are over 10,000 ft2. Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Annual Fire & Life Safety Inspections 35 121 65 Deficiencies From the Above Inspections 148 650 154 Fire Code Violations/Deficiencies/Complaints 68 154 59 C/O & Fire Equipment Acceptance Tests 6 29 19 Meetings & Walk Through 28 61 50 Fire Plan Review & DAC 11 30 37 Month Year to Date Previous Year to Date Accidental 1 totaling $1 5 totaling $21,001 5 totaling $138,000 Undetermined 1 totaling $1,000 2 totaling $3,000 7 totaling $396,000 Incendiary N/A N/A N/A Arrest Made with DPD N/A N/A 0 Investigation Time 6 hours 33 hours 26 hours Injuries 1 2 0 Deaths 0 0 0 Please feel free to contact our office at any time with any questions or concerns. Thank you!

a

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 This page intentionally left blank Page 2

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 CITY OF DOVER ACTIVITY REPORTS September 2020 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY LEVELS FY20 YTD FY21 YTD BANK TRENDS Number of Deposits Made (Hand, ACH & Wire, Lockbox) 1,966 1,686 Total Amount of All Deposits $ 51,695,293 $ 64,044,340 Other Activity Number of Pay Periods 7 7 Number of Payroll Checks & Direct Deposits Issued 2,777 2,685 Number of Pension Checks Issued 768 783 Total Pension Benefits Paid - Defined Benefit Plan $ 2,777,914 $ 2,865,628 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Number of Check Vouchers 1,549 1,609 Number of EFT Vouchers Vouchers Dollar Amount Disbursed L _ _ _ __ _______.______I ._____I_ $ 720 19,397,773 $ 724 19,494,762 FY20 YTD Wages FY21 YTD Wages $22,918 $10,176 $25,093 $22,801 $107,337 $161,578 $107,533 $158,394 $152,186 $115,815 $559,067 $464,286 $490,816 $565,364 $4,846,671 $4,931,475 Regular ..Regular All over time Vacation .. All over time Vacation Sick Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout .. Sick Terminal Leave - Retiree Vacation/Sick Payout Personal Personal • Other • Comp Time • Comp Time Other Page 3

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 City of Dover General Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (September 2020) Revenues Budget Actual % Property & Transfer Taxes $ 16,319,300 $ 14,916,628 91% Program Revenues 10,312,800 3,213,957 31% Utility Transfers 11,000,000 2,750,000 25% Grants 778,500 13,720 2% Interfund Services 5,592,700 1,113,772 20% All Other 1 920,000 21,548 2% $ 44,923,300 $ 22,029,624 49% Expenditures Budget Actual % Program Expenses 2 $ 29,235,400 $ 5,981,385 20% Interfund Services 10,622,300 1,949,749 18% Debt Service 462,200 116,578 25% Post Retirement Benefits 2,045,400 511,350 25% Pension Fund Contributions 935,100 108,775 12% Capital Project Transfers 2,078,100 519,525 25% All Other 3 1,117,000 324,968 29% $ 46,495,500 $ 9,512,329 20% 1 Includes Cable Franchise Revenue, Miscellaneous Receipts, Garrison Farm Rent, Sale of Assets, Return Check Fees, Fund Interest Income, and Investment Manager Cost 2 Includes Stormwater Account 3 Includes Misc. Grant Exp., Bank and CC Fees, Street Lights Expense, DDP Contribution, Transfer to Electric I&E, and Bond Issue Costs Page 4

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 General Fund Revenues $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- Property & Transfer Taxes I I Program Revenues Utility Transfers • Budget • Actual Grants - Interfund Services liiiiiil _ All Other 1 General Fund Expenditures $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $- -• I. --- -- • Budget • Actual Page 5

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 City of Dover Water Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (September 2020) Revenues Budget Actual % Customer Sales $ 6,231,700 $ 1,842,970 30% Impact Fees 570,000 61,442 11% Rents 420,100 52,761 13% Miscellaneous 1 101,800 140,311 138% $ 7,323,600 $ 2,097,484 29% Expenditures Budget Actual % Program Expenses $ 3,289,200 $ 621,292 19% Interfund Services 1,028,800 201,180 20% Debt Service 762,800 171,604 22% Post Retirement Benefits 176,900 51,300 29% Capital Project Transfers 1,300,000 325,000 25% General Fund Transfer 500,000 125,000 25% All Other 2 20,000 5,432 27% $ 7,077,700 $ 1,500,808 21% 1 Includes Interest Earnings and Miscellaneous Income 2 Includes Bank & CC Fees Page 6

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 Water Revenues $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- . " Customer Sales Impact Fees Rents Miscellaneous 1 Budget Actual Water Expenditures $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- Program Expenses Interfund Services Debt Service Post Retirement Benefits •Budget •Actual •~ Capital Project Transfers General Fund Transfer All Other 2 Page 7

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 City of Dover Wastewater Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (September 2020) Revenues Budget Actual % Customer Sales $ 9,783,000 $ 2,638,860 27% Impact Fees 480,000 51,792 11% Miscellaneous 1 21,300 2,515 12% $ 10,284,300 $ 2,693,167 26% Expenditures Budget Actual % Program Expenses $ 1,432,500 $ 301,216 21% Kent County Treatment Fee 4,302,900 1,012,089 24% Interfund Services 779,600 157,119 20% Debt Service 659,900 44,846 7% Post Retirement Benefits 81,500 20,375 25% Capital Project Transfers 1,200,000 300,000 25% General Fund Transfer 500,000 125,000 25% All Other 2 10,000 1,945 19% $ 8,966,400 $ 1,962,589 22% 1 Includes Interest Earnings, Miscellaneous Income, and Wastewater Penalties 2 Includes Bank & CC Fees and Bond Issuance Cost Page 8

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 Wastewater Revenues $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- Customer Sales Impact Fees Miscellaneous 1 II Budget II Actual Wastewater Expenditures $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- Program Expenses Kent County Interfund Services Debt Service Post Retirement Capital Project General Fund All Other 2 Treatment Fee Benefits Transfers Transfer UBudget II Actual Page 9

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 City of Dover Electric Fund Summary Fiscal Year to Date (September 2020) Revenues Budget Actual % Customer Sales $ 81,662,500 $ 23,612,317 29% Distribution of Earnings (5,246,100) (1,526,765) 29% All Other 1 3,424,400 189,307 6% $ 79,840,800 $ 22,274,859 28% Expenditures Budget Actual % Power Supply & Generation $ 46,084,100 $ 9,092,186 20% Electric Operating Div. Exp. 7,345,800 1,492,509 20% Interfund Services 3,784,300 755,473 20% Debt Service 1,378,600 344,640 25% Post Retirement Benefits 789,600 197,400 25% Capital Project Transfers 6,000,000 1,500,000 25% General Fund Transfer 10,000,000 2,500,000 25% Rate Stabilization Reserve 2,000,000 - 0% All Other 2 2,023,400 796,451 39% $ 79,405,800 $ 16,678,660 21% 1 Includes Rental Revenue, Miscellaneous Service Revenue, Interest Income, Penalties, General Service Billing Received from Uncollectible, and Green Energy Charge 2 Includes Utility Tax, Interest on Deposits, Green Energy, A/R Write-offs, and Bank & CC Fees Megawatt Hours Sold & Purchased Rev. Budget Actual Sales to Customers MWh (excl. Street Light MWh) 749,446 251,557 Sales per MWh $100.30 $86.50 Purchased/Generated MWh 779,796- 222,934- All In MWh Supply & Generation $59.10 $40.78 Page 10

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 Electric Fund - Revenues Mi llions $(10) $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 Budget Actual I II Customer Sales • Distribution of Earnings Ii All Other 1 Electric Fund - Expenditures $50,000,000 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 rl .1 $5,000,000 $- Electric Rate Power Supply & Interfund Post Retirement Capital Project General Fund Operating Div. Debt Service Stabilization All Other 2 Generation Services Benefits Transfers Transfer Exp. Reserve I- I- I- I- • Budget $46,084,100 7,345,800 3,784,300 1,378,600 789,600 I- 6,000,000 I- 10,000,000 I- 2,000,000 I- 2,023,400 • Actual $9,092,186 1,492,509 755,473 344,640 197,400 1,500,000 2,500,000 - 796,451 II Budget II Actual Page 11

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 This page intentionally left blank Page 12

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 City of Dover Division Expense Summary (General Fund) Fiscal Year to Date (September 2020) Budget Actual % General Fund Divisions % of Budget City Clerk $ 508,400 $ 94,176 18% Council 156,600 27,677 18% Mayor Tax Assessor 245,900 64,732 27% Human Resources Fire 769,900 190,436 25% Customer Services Grounds 1,456,600 15,862 1% Fleet Maintenance Library 1,822,700 322,177 18% Procurement & Inventory Recreation 1,129,700 429,370 38% Engineering Life Safety 432,700 97,835 23% Code Enforcement 815,000 69,337 9% Facilities Management Planning 663,200 126,320 19% Pub. Services Administration Public Inspections 595,300 123,123 21% Finance Police 17,819,900 3,763,700 21% Information Technology Police Extra Duty 750,000 33,875 5% City Manager Streets 699,700 125,575 18% Stormwater Sanitation 2,506,800 526,418 21% Stormwater 785,900 60,830 8% Sanitation City Manager 1,044,800 237,609 23% Streets Information Technology 912,800 216,785 24% Police Extra Duty Finance 992,700 180,379 18% Police Pub. Services Administration 594,600 115,277 19% Public Inspections Facilities Management 655,800 136,507 21% Planning Engineering 198,700 47,657 24% Procurement & Inventory 715,900 160,186 22% Code Enforcement Fleet Maintenance 930,600 199,318 21% Life Safety Customer Services 1,107,600 240,585 22% Recreation Human Resources 524,200 103,630 20% Library Mayor 221,700 29,339 13% Grounds $ 39,057,700 $ 7,738,715 20% Fire Tax Assessor Council City Clerk 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Page 13

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 City of Dover Utilities Expenditure Summary Fiscal Year to Date (September 2020) Water Divison Budget Actual % Engineering & Inspection $ 397,800 $ 61,019 15% Water Department 669,800 126,228 19% Water Treatment Plant 2,221,600 434,044 20% $ 3,289,200 $ 621,292 19% Wastewater Divison Budget Actual % Engineering & Inspection $ 288,300 $ 53,829 19% Wastewater Department 1,144,200 247,386 22% $ 1,432,500 $ 301,216 21% Electric Division Budget Actual % Transmission/Distribution $ 3,995,600 $ 892,898 22% Electrical Engineering 1,396,400 280,347 20% Administration 707,400 79,681 11% Meter Reading 375,300 81,445 22% Systems Operations 871,100 158,138 18% $ 7,345,800 $ 1,492,509 20% Page 14

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 Water Division % of Budget Water Treatment Plant Water Department Engineering & Inspection 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Wastewater Division % of Budget Wastewater Department Engineering & Inspection 17% 18% 18% 19% 19% 20% 20% 21% 21% 22% 22% Electric Division % of Budget Systems Operations Meter Reading Administration Electrical Engineering Transmission/Distribution 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Page 15

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 City of Dover Capital Outlay Summary (All Funds) Fiscal Year to Date (September 2020) General Fund Budget Actual % Fire $ 173,300 $ 19,418 11% Police 912,400 700 0% Streets 936,000 162,175 5% Sanitation 475,200 - 0% Stormwater 1,110,700 6,122 0% Facilities Management 700,000 - 0% Library County Grant - 23,414 118% Recreation 395,000 66,029 8% Purchasing 25,000 - 0% Information Technology 61,600 4,067 7% Planning 20,400 37,776 185% Inspections 18,600 - 0% Public Works 39,600 - 0% General Fund Capital Projects $ 4,867,800 $ 343,728 4% Water Fund Water $ 1,225,900 $ 144,492 12% Water Treatment Plant - 755,661 808% Water Fund Capital Projects $ 1,225,900 $ 900,154 69% Wastewater Fund Wastewater 1,099,000 181,183 17% Wastewater Fund Capital Projects $ 1,099,000 $ 181,183 17% Electric Fund Electric Generation $ 1,267,000 $ 5,000 0% Transmission/Distribution 1,100,000 301,187 27% Electrical Engineering 2,968,900 370,245 12% ERP System 500,000 - 0% Electric Administration 360,000 72,140 20% Electric Fund Capital Projects $ 6,195,900 $ 748,572 12% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 13,388,600 $ 2,173,636 13% Page 16

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 Capital Outlay - All Divisions $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 l J 11 I $1,000,000 $500,000 $- • ... II Budget WActual Capital Outlay - By Fund $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- Budget Actual Iii General Fund Capital Projects II Water Fund Capital Projects Wastewater Fund Iii Electric Fund Capital Projects Page 17

Finance Department Monthly Report September 2020 This page intentionally left blank Page 18

DEPARTMENT OF POLICE Thomas A. Johnson, Jr. 400 South Queen Street Chief of Police Dover, Delaware 19904 302-736-7111 November 9, 2020 Honorable Robin Christiansen, Mayor Members of Dover City Council City Hall Dover, DE 19901 Mayor Christiansen and Council Members: The following is the monthly report for Dover Police Department activities for the month of September 2020: COMPLAINTS Total complaints received through September 30, 2020 numbered 24,796 this is a decrease of 6,432 complaints over the same period last year. 40,000 33,065 32,011 32,958 31,228 30,000 24,796 20,000 10,000 0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 10 8 8 6 5 5 11 ·-- 1. - 4 4 4 2 2 2 0 Burglary 0 1 Robbery 1 Rape 0 1 0 Homicide 0 IISudden Death 0 • Cases Reported in September • Cases Cleared In September • Cases Cleared from Previous Months 1|Page

DRUGS, VICE, & ORGANIZED CRIME (DVOC) AND STREET CRIMES SECTION SEIZURES Along with the drug seizures listed below, the units also recovered.271 miscellaneous other drugs and $19,331.00 during the month of September. 3,000.00 2665.5 2,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,375.55 • Marijuana 6.01 Cocaine I Ecstasy (Doses) 0 Prescription Pills (Doses) 0.035 Heroin • GRAMS/DOSES FIREARM SEIZURES/INSIDE CITY LIMITS 15 10 -- •- 10 5 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI DVOC/STREET CRIMES PATROL SEU • HANDGUN • RIFLE • SHOTGUN COMMUNITY POLICING & CADETS COMMUNITY POLICING CONTACTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 2 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI’S 0 CADETS CONTACTS ASSIST OTHER 96 PARKING 3 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 SMOKING 0 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 0 OPEN CONTAINER 21 PARKING DCO’S 12 LOUD NOISE 0 LOUD MUSIC 0 OTHER DCO’s 17 MISCELLANEOUS DCO’S 0 PROPERTY CHECKS 4 PARKING COMPLAINTS 0 BUSINESS CONTACTS 44 PEDDLER 0 LIBRARY CHECKS 1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH 104 COMPLAINTS ASSIGNED 11 CRIME PREVENTION CHECK 0 SPECIAL EVENTS 0 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 34 TOTAL CONTACTS 101 BIKE PATROL 0 PROPERTY CHECKS 9 WARNINGS 35 TOTAL CONTACTS 292 2|Page

STREET CRIMES STREET CRIMES ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS ABANDONED VEHICLES 0 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS/DUI'S 0 ASSIST OTHER 4 WARRANTS ON FILE 0 CITY PARK VIOLATIONS 0 CRIMINAL ARRESTS 19 DRUG RELATED ARRESTS 24 LOUD MUSIC 0 MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS 0 PARKING VIOLATIONS 0 PEDDLER 0 MEETINGS 3 CURFEW CHECKS 120 CRIME PREVENTION CHECKS 0 TRAFFIC ARRESTS 12 WARNINGS 0 FUGITIVES 4 DCO'S 0 PROSTITUTION 0 TOTAL CONTACTS 186 TRAFFIC ARRESTS The department issued 3,835 traffic citations through this reporting period; this is a decrease of 3,252 citations over the number issued during the same period last year. 14,000 12,607 12,000 10,000 8,874 8,000 6,684 7,087 6,000 3,835 4,000 2,000 0 2016 2017 2018 2019 I 2020 3|Page

TRAFFIC CRASHES (the cumulative numbers for reportable accidents are lower than August as a glitch in the recording of stats was discovered and rectified) 1000 900 860 800 700 600 500 441 400 300 200 100 0 Thru September • Reportable • Non-Reportable 911 Center During the month of September, the Dover Police Department handled 6,912 calls, a decrease of 668 calls received during the same period last year. 10,000 9,000 8,764 8,733 8,000 7,600 7,580 6,912 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 D 2020 4|Page

CITY ORDINANCE SUMMONS Through September 30, 2020, we issued 2,687 city ordinance summons, a decrease of 1,265 summonses for the same period last year. 6,000 5,369 5,000 4,529 3,826 3,952 4,000 11 I• I. I . 2,833 2,687 3,000 2,423 1,816 2,000 1,000 0 I 1,427 977 : I 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ISSUED 5,369 4,529 3,826 3,952 2,687 PAID 2,833 2,423 1,816 1,427 977 SEX OFFENDER STATISTICS/SEPTEMBER MONTHLY NON COMPLIANT VERIFICATIONS NOTIFICATIONS REVERIFICATIONS WARRANTS TIER 1 0 0 0 0 TIER 2 12 1,116 36 0 TIER 3 13 1,859 42 0 ACTIVE SEX OFFENDERS THAT RESIDE IN THE CITY OF DOVER (please note, Tier 1 offenders are not contacted by Dover Police Sex Offender Agents). 250 195 191 200 150 96 100 88 50 0 AUGUST SEPTEMBER • TIER 2 195 191 • TIER 3 88 96 (Please note, Tier 1 offenders are not contacted by Dover Police Sex Offender Agents) 5|Page

Please visit our website at www.doverpolice.org for up to date information on crimes and activities in the City of Dover. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas A. Johnson, Jr. Chief of Police 6|Page

City of Dover 1st Quarter FY21 Capital Investment Plan and Project Status Report As of September 30, 2020 Points to Remember - * Pending approval of Project Carry-Forward Budget Balances/Proposed Budget Amendment Ordinance # 2020-14 * Original Project Budget = Original Total Project Budget initially included in approved annual budget. * Latest Project Budget = Revised Total Project Budget included in most recent approved annual budget or one of the following: bond resolution, revolving fund loan agreement, Council approved budget amendment, or City Manager approved amendment as per the Budget Amendment Procedure. * Water Quality, Inflow/Infiltration, Distribution Upgrades and New Development projects are budgeted as a blanket project, and once individual projects are identified and estimated, they are created using an allocation of the overall budgeted amount. Community Total Current Year Budget Funding Sources General Transportation Water Wastewater Electric CIP Budget Balance $ 3,018,500 $ 312,400 $ 660,700 $ 859,000 $ 993,400 $ 5,844,000 General Billings for Reimbursement of Expense - - - - 400,000 400,000 State Grants 1,440,000 483,400 - - - 1,923,400 Budget Bond/Bank Proceeds 1,498,300 - - - - 1,498,300 State Loan Fund - Wastewater - - - 578,600 - 578,600 Transfer from Electric - - - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 Transfer from WW Impact Fee Reserve - - - 31,600 - 31,600 Transfer from Water Impact Fee Reserve - - 70,100 - - 70,100 Transfer from Water/Wastewater Oper. Fund - - 1,300,000 1,200,000 - 2,500,000 Transfer from General Fund 2,078,100 - - - - 2,078,100 Transfer from Depreciation Reserve - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Transfer from Capital Asset Reserve 346,400 - - - - 346,400 Interest Income - - 50,000 10,000 218,200 278,200 Total Funding Sources (Unaudited) $ 8,381,300 $ 795,800 $ 2,080,800 $ 2,679,200 $ 8,611,600 $ 22,548,700 1 of 8 1ST QTR FY21 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT

GENERAL FUND TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project Percent Original Revised * Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Type Item Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Charges Balance Fire Department 101-11-14-99 FR1800/FR1901 Annual Contribution for Engine 7 $ 77,700 $ 77,700 $ 19,418 $ 58,282 25.0% $ 77,700 $ 77,700 $ 19,418 $ 58,282 FR2000 R Annual Contribution for Rescue/Pumper Truck 95,600 95,600 - 95,600 0.0% 95,600 95,600 - 95,600 Total Fire Department $ 173,300 $ 173,300 $ 19,418 $ 153,882 11.2% $ 173,300 $ 173,300 $ 19,418 $ 153,882 Library 101-13-15-11 LB2003 Library Audio/Visual Upgrades $ 34,000 $ 29,800 $ 29,800 $ - 100.0% $ - $ 14,700 $ 14,634 $ 67 LB2006 Library and Surveillance Expansion/Access Panels 17,300 17,300 17,430 (130) 100.8% - 5,200 8,780 (3,580) Total Library $ 51,300 $ 47,100 $ 47,230 $ (130) 100.3% $ - $ 19,900 $ 23,414 $ (3,514) Parks & Recreation 101-13-15-12 PR1900 Park Maintenance Facility $ 260,000 $ 291,000 $ 285,552 $ 5,448 98.1% $ - $ 74,900 $ 65,255 $ 9,645 PR1402/PR2004 M Schutte Park Land Improvements 100,000 560,000 138,057 421,943 24.7% - 60,400 - 60,400 PR1701 G Dover Park - Master Plan 50,000 700,000 146,265 553,735 20.9% - 178,700 - 178,700 PR1800 G Park and Playground Improvement Program 66,000 132,000 15,322 116,678 11.6% - - 1,366 (1,366) PR1801 R Small Park Improvements 15,000 93,000 50,160 42,840 53.9% 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 PR2000 Silver Lake Park - Master Plan & Plan Implementation 150,000 150,000 - 150,000 0.0% 70,000 70,000 - 70,000 PR2002 Dover Park - Can-Do Playground 195,000 195,000 - 195,000 0.0% - 195,000 - 195,000 PR2100 Dover Park Improvements 310,000 310,000 - 310,000 0.0% 310,000 310,000 - 310,000 Total Parks & Recreation $ 1,146,000 $ 2,431,000 $ 635,356 $ 1,485,644 26.1% $ 395,000 $ 904,000 $ 66,621 $ 837,379 Planning 101-10-16-21 PW2102 IPLAN Touch Screen Tables $ 20,400 $ 20,400 $ - $ 20,400 Total Planning $ 20,400 $ 20,400 $ - $ 20,400 Life Safety 101-11-16-13 --- MISC AUTOMOBILE $ - $ 67,500 $ 24,027 $ 43,473 Total Life Safety $ - $ 67,500 $ 24,027 $ 43,473 Code Enforcement 101-11-16-20 --- MISC AUTOMOBILE $ - $ 37,800 $ 37,776 $ 24 Total Code Enforcement $ - $ 37,800 $ 37,776 $ 24 Inspections 101-11-16-22 --- MISC AUTOMOBILE $ 18,600 $ 18,600 $ - $ 18,600 Total - Inspections $ 18,600 $ 18,600 $ - $ 18,600 Police 101-11-17-00 --- MISC AUTOMOBILES $ 92,700 $ 92,700 $ 700 $ 92,000 PD2004 Police Station Chiller Replacement $ 228,600 $ 179,000 $ - $ 179,000 0.0% 179,000 179,000 - 179,000 PD2005 PD Communications Ctr Alm Panel Replacement 136,700 136,700 62,326 74,374 45.6% - 74,400 - 74,400 PD2101 Police Station 1st Floor Tile Replacement 42,600 42,600 - 42,600 0.0% 42,600 42,600 - 42,600 PD2103 PD Cooling Station Tower & Pump Replacement 319,300 319,300 - 319,300 0.0% 319,300 319,300 - 319,300 PD2104 PD Computer Wiring Upgrade 175,400 175,400 - 175,400 0.0% 175,400 175,400 - 175,400 PD2105 PD Communications Center Workspace 103,400 103,400 - 103,400 0.0% 103,400 103,400 - 103,400 Total Police $ 365,300 $ 315,700 $ 62,326 $ 253,374 19.7% $ 912,400 $ 986,800 $ 700 $ 986,100 101 2 of 8 1ST QTR FY21 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT

GENERAL FUND TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project Percent Original Revised * Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Type Item Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Charges Balance Streets 101-12-18-35 --- MISC AUTOMOBILES $ - $ 144,700 $ 144,675 $ 25 ST1904/ST2003 Meeting House Branch Improvement $ 1,100,000 $ 1,093,100 $ 116,596 $ 976,504 10.7% - 976,400 - 976,400 ST1905/ST2007 Operations Yard Relocation and Imp. 445,000 445,000 103,294 341,706 23.2% - 341,700 - 341,700 ST1909 Letter of Map Revision - Ltl Rv 42,000 42,000 42,000 - 100.0% - - - - ST2001/ST2101 M Street, Concrete and Alley Program 950,000 2,017,355 281,246 1,736,109 13.9% 936,000 1,761,300 17,500 1,743,800 Total Streets $ 2,537,000 $ 3,597,455 $ 543,136 $ 3,054,319 15.1% $ 936,000 $ 3,224,100 $ 162,175 $ 3,061,925 Sanitation 101-12-18-50 --- TRUCKS $ 475,200 $ 475,200 $ - $ 475,200 Total Sanitation $ 475,200 $ 475,200 $ - $ 475,200 Stormwater 101-12-18-60 ST2004 M Mirror Lake Drainage Basin Improvement $ 75,000 $ 425,000 $ - $ 425,000 0.0% $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ 75,000 ST2005 M East Lake Garden Drainage Basin Improvement 80,000 580,000 - 580,000 0.0% - 80,000 80,000 ST2009 Persimmon Park Place Drainage Study 63,000 63,800 23,035 40,765 36.1% - 47,800 7,015 40,785 SW2101 Miscellaneous Emergency Storm Sewer Repairs 79,000 79,000 - 79,000 0.0% 79,000 79,000 - 79,000 SW2102 Street Division Barn Door Replacement 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 0.0% 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 SW2103 Silver Lake Dam Repairs 51,700 51,700 - 51,700 0.0% 51,700 51,700 - 51,700 SW2104 Persimmon Park Place Basin Improvements 900,000 900,000 - 900,000 0.0% 900,000 900,000 - 900,000 SW2105/ST2006 M West Street Flooding Improvements 674,000 660,000 - 660,000 0.0% 60,000 74,000 - 74,000 Total Stormwater $ 1,942,700 $ 2,779,500 $ 23,035 $ 2,756,465 0.8% $ 1,110,700 $ 1,327,500 $ 7,015 $ 1,320,485 Information Technology 101-16-22-99 IT1900/2100 Server Lifecycle $ 52,300 $ 52,300 $ 4,067 $ 48,233 7.8% $ 52,300 $ 52,300 $ 4,067 $ 48,233 IT1801/2101 R Network Infrastructure 9,300 9,300 - 9,300 0.0% 9,300 9,300 9,300 Total Information Technology $ 61,600 $ 61,600 $ 4,067 $ 9,300 6.6% $ 61,600 $ 61,600 $ 4,067 $ 57,533 Facilities Management 101-12-25-99 FC2001 - MNT City Hall HVAC Replacement $ 782,000 $ 931,200 $ 231,127 $ 700,073 24.8% $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ - $ 700,000 Total Facilities Management $ 782,000 $ 931,200 $ 231,127 $ 700,073 24.8% $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ - $ 700,000 Public Works Engineering 101-12-26-99 --- TRUCKS $ 25,600 $ 25,600 $ - $ 25,600 PW2101 IPLAN Touch Screen Tables 14,000 14,000 - 14,000 Total Engineering $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.0% $ 39,600 $ 39,600 $ - $ 39,600 Procurement/Inventory 101-15-27-99 CS2001 Warehouse HVAC Replacement $ 25,000 $ 325,000 $ - $ 325,000 0.0% $ 25,000 $ 325,000 $ - $ 325,000 Total Procurement/Inventory $ 25,000 $ 325,000 $ - $ 325,000 0.0% $ 25,000 $ 325,000 $ - $ 325,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 7,084,200 $ 10,661,855 $ 1,565,695 $ 8,737,927 14.7% $ 4,867,800 $ 8,381,300 $ 345,212 $ 8,036,088 * PENDING APPROVAL Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. G = Grant funded project B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan. 101 3 of 8 1ST QTR FY21 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT

COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION FUND TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project Percent Original Revised * Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Type Item Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Charges Balance Community Transportation - 203-12-99 CT1833 Paving Project - Hope Street & Crawford Carroll Ave. $ 100,000 $ 99,600 $ 60,547 $ 39,053 60.8% $ - $ 39,053 $ - $ 39,053 CT1904 Bertrand and Reese Street 300,000 310,000 229,819 80,181 74.1% - 80,181 - 80,181 ST1908 Street and Alley Program 500,000 500,000 478,088 21,912 95.6% - 21,912 - 21,912 CT1918 Signs Project - Towne Point/Hamlet/Persimmon Cir 4,215 12,645 3,725 8,920 29.5% - 8,920 - 8,920 CT1935 Paving Project - Maple Parkway 108,300 108,300 99,010 9,290 91.4% - 9,290 - 9,290 TE0601 TCSP Lincoln Park 79,100 79,100 - 79,100 0.0% - 79,100 - 79,100 CTXXXX Unapplied CT Projects (placeholder) - - - - 0.0% 750,000 557,344 - 557,344 TOTAL COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION FUND $ 1,091,615 $ 1,109,645 $ 871,190 $ 238,455 78.5% $ 750,000 $ 795,800 $ - $ 795,800 * PENDING APPROVAL Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. C = Project funded by combination of CT Funds and General Fund B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan. 203 4 of 8 1ST QTR FY21 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT

WATER FUND TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project Percent Original Revised * Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Type Item Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Charges Balance Water - 401-40-68-99 WD1900 M Meter Replacement Project $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 39,972 $ 660,028 5.7% $ - $ 17,000 $ 10,943 $ 6,057 WD2102 IPLAN Touch Screen Tables 20,400 20,400 - 20,400 0.0% 20,400 20,400 - 20,400 WQ2001 Water Quality Improvements 773,000 744,200 520,860 223,340 70.0% - 269,400 46,112 223,288 WD2101 R Wellhead Redevelopment Program 140,000 140,000 87,437 52,563 62.5% 140,000 140,000 87,437 52,563 WQ2101 R Water Quality Improvements 980,500 980,500 - 980,500 0.0% 980,500 980,500 - 980,500 WQ2102 Misc. Emergency Repairs 85,000 85,000 - 85,000 0.0% 85,000 85,000 - 85,000 Total Water Division $ 2,698,900 $ 2,670,100 $ 648,269 $ 2,021,831 24.3% $ 1,225,900 $ 1,512,300 $ 144,492 $ 1,367,808 Water Treatment Plant - 401-40-76-99 WD1609 M WTP Process Improvements $ 1,200,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 6,983,861 $ 16,139 99.8% $ - $ 568,500 $ 145,482 $ 423,018 Total Water Treatment Plant $ 1,200,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 6,983,861 $ 16,139 99.8% $ - $ 568,500 $ 145,482 $ 423,018 TOTAL WATER FUND $ 3,898,900 $ 9,670,100 $ 7,632,130 $ 2,037,970 78.9% $ 1,225,900 $ 2,080,800 $ 289,974 $ 1,790,826 * PENDING APPROVAL Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. C = Project funded by combination of CT Funds and General Fund B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan. 401 5 of 8 1ST QTR FY21 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT

WASTEWATER FUND TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project Percent Original Revised * Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Type Item Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Charges Balance Wastewater - 403-41-69-99 --- TRUCKS $ - $ 47,700 $ - $ 47,700 WW1900 M Meter Replacement $ 34,200 $ 46,100 $ 39,972 $ 40,328 86.7% - 17,000 10,943 6,057 WW2006 SCADA Equipment Technology Upgrade 308,000 308,000 - 308,000 0.0% - 308,000 - 308,000 WW2106 IPLAN Touch Screen Tables 14,000 14,000 - 14,000 - 14,000 14,000 - 14,000 WW1906 Meeting House Branch Sewer Replacement 250,000 300,100 86,924 213,176 29.0% - 213,100 - 213,100 WW2001/WW2101 R Inflow/Infiltration Removal 800,000 935,400 155,445 779,955 16.6% 800,000 935,400 155,445 779,955 WW2002/WW2102 Misc. Emergency Sanitary Sewer Repairs 150,000 150,000 14,795 135,205 9.9% 150,000 150,000 14,795 135,205 WW2004 US 13 East Pump Station #7 Repairs 280,400 280,400 - 280,400 0.0% - 280,400 - 280,400 WW2103 M College Road Pump Station Replacement 657,000 655,000 - 655,000 0.0% 75,000 75,000 - 75,000 WW1806/WW2003 Puncheon Run Pump Station Improvements 320,000 686,400 107,798 578,602 15.7% - 578,600 - 578,600 WW2104 Lepore Road Sanitary Sewer Upgrade 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 WW2105 Turnberry Pump Station Replacement 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 0.0% 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND $ 2,873,600 $ 3,435,400 $ 404,933 $ 3,064,667 11.8% $ 1,099,000 $ 2,679,200 $ 181,183 $ 2,498,017 * PENDING APPROVAL Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. C = Project funded by combination of CT Funds and General Fund B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan. 403 6 of 8 1ST QTR FY21 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT

ELECTRIC FUND TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project Percent Original Revised * Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Type Item Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Charges Balance Engineering 411-42-26-99 --- MISC AUTOMOBILES $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ - $ 30,000 EE2102 Substation Test Equipment $ 12,500 $ 12,500 $ 8,765 $ 3,735 70.1% 12,500 12,500 8,765 3,735 EE2105 Radio Infrastructure Upgrade 375,000 375,000 - 375,000 0.0% 375,000 375,000 - 375,000 EE2107 System Operations Voice Recorder 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 EE2113 ArcFM Migration to Electric Utility Network 160,000 160,000 - 160,000 0.0% 160,000 160,000 - 160,000 EE2114 IPLAN Touch Screen Tables 20,400 20,400 - 20,400 0.0% 20,400 20,400 - 20,400 TD2105 Truck Barn Door Replacement 29,500 29,500 - 29,500 0.0% - 29,500 - 29,500 EE1919/EE2019 Roadway Light LED Conversion 1,500,000 4,990,000 350,636 4,639,364 7.0% - - 10,539 (10,539) EE2108 LED Lighting Conversion Phase 1 1,025,000 995,500 305,764 689,736 30.7% 1,025,000 995,500 305,764 689,736 EE2005 College Road Consolidation 110,000 110,000 2,910 107,090 2.6% 110,000 110,000 2,910 107,090 EE2017 Transmission Line Maintenance Program 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 0.0% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 EE2016 Garrison Oak Tech Park Substation 750,000 750,000 - 750,000 0.0% 750,000 750,000 - 750,000 EE2021 Route 8 & 15 Pole Design 49,500 49,500 16,349 33,151 33.0% - 42,400 9,251 33,149 EE2098 Substation Component Upgrade 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 0.0% 30,000 30,000 - 30,000 EE2099 Fault Indicators 30,000 40,000 9,352 30,648 23.4% - - 9,352 (9,352) EE2106 Capitol Green Secondary 33,000 33,000 - 33,000 0.0% 33,000 33,000 - 33,000 EE2110 Division St Overhead Rebuild 85,000 85,000 897 84,103 1.1% 85,000 85,000 897 84,103 EE2111 Live Front Transformer & Conductor Restoration 140,000 140,000 22,766 117,234 16.3% 140,000 140,000 22,766 117,234 EE2112 Townsend Blvd & Miller Dr 123,000 123,000 - 123,000 0.0% 123,000 123,000 - 123,000 Total Engineering $ 4,547,900 $ 8,018,400 $ 717,440 $ 7,300,960 8.9% $ 2,968,900 $ 3,011,300 $ 370,245 $ 2,641,055 Electric Generation 411-42-80-99 EG2001 VanSant Unit 11 Component Replacement $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 31,600 $ 58,400 35.1% $ 35,000 $ 58,400 $ - $ 58,400 EG2002 McKee Run Unit 3 Auxillary System Components 120,000 120,000 47,669 72,331 39.7% 60,000 72,300 - 72,300 EG2101 Vansant U/G Fuel Line Relocate 172,000 172,000 - 172,000 0.0% 172,000 172,000 - 172,000 EG2102 Plant Decommissioning 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000 995,000 0.5% 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000 995,000 Total Electric Generation $ 1,382,000 $ 1,382,000 $ 84,269 $ 1,297,731 6.1% $ 1,267,000 $ 1,302,700 $ 5,000 $ 1,297,700 T & D 411-42-82-99 --- TRUCKS $ 250,000 $ 277,400 $ 127,935 $ 149,465 UG Transformers locations as follows: EE2120 R New Developments $ 285,000 $ 265,700 $ 33,635 $ 232,065 12.7% $ 285,000 $ 265,700 $ 33,635 $ 232,065 TD2004 Verona Woods 8,900 8,900 8,875 8,900 99.7% - - - - TD2017 Safety Town Training Fac 5,600 5,600 5,537 5,600 98.9% - - - - TD2020 Delaware State Police - 17,300 17,317 (17) 100.1% - 17,300 17,301 (1) TD2103 47 S West St - 2,000 1,973 27 98.7% - 2,000 1,973 27 411 7 of 8 1ST QTR FY21 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT

ELECTRIC FUND TOTAL PROJECT - PAST, CURRENT & FUTURE BUDGETS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Original Latest Project Project Percent Original Revised * Fiscal Project Project Project To Date Budget Budget Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YTD Budget Code Type Item Budget Budget Expenses Balance Spent Budget Budget Charges Balance UG Conductors locations as follows: EE2120 R New Developments $ 513,000 $ 393,200 $ 846 $ 392,354 0.2% $ 513,000 $ 393,200 $ 846 $ 392,354 TD2004 Verona Woods 136,100 136,200 136,121 79 99.9% - 100 34 66 TD2009 Saint Jones Commons - 10,400 10,352 48 99.5% - 10,400 10,352 48 TD2017 Safety Town Training Fac 2,300 2,300 2,216 84 96.3% - - - - TD2020 Delaware State Police 41,400 102,500 102,416 84 99.9% - 61,100 61,020 80 TD2103 47 S West St - 1,800 1,767 33 98.1% - 1,800 1,767 33 TD2104 Eden Hill 750 Tiepoint - 46,000 45,949 51 99.9% - 46,000 45,949 51 TD2107 State Police Antenna - 400 - 400 0.0% - 400 - 400 UG Meters locations as follows: EE2120 R New Developments $ 52,000 $ 51,200 $ - $ 12,000 0.0% $ 52,000 $ 51,200 $ - $ 51,200 TD2004 Verona Woods 2,500 2,500 2,479 21 99.2% - - - - TD2020 Delaware State Police 1,100 1,500 1,508 (8) 100.5% - 400 375 25 TD2107 State Police Antenna - 400 - 400 0.0% - 400 - 400 Total T & D $ 1,047,900 $ 1,047,900 $ 370,990 $ 652,123 35.4% $ 1,100,000 $ 1,127,400 $ 301,187 $ 826,213 Administration 411-42-84-99 EE2101 Reed St IT Room Generator $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ - $ 20,000 0.0% $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ - $ 20,000 EA2101 Reed St Shingled Roof 300,000 300,000 - 300,000 0.0% 300,000 300,000 - 300,000 EA2102 Reed St Chimney Refurbish 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 0.0% 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 EA2103 Electric Utility Admin Facility 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 0.0% 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 EE1819 Reed St HVAC Major Overhaul 1,175,200 1,175,200 - 1,175,200 0.0% - 1,175,200 - 1,175,200 EE2007 2020 Weyandt Hall Improvements 150,000 144,300 144,280 20 100.0% - 72,200 72,140 60 EE2009 2020 Electric Utility Admin Facility Improvements 318,000 318,000 - 318,000 0.0% - 318,000 - 318,000 Total Administration $ 2,003,200 $ 1,997,500 $ 144,280 $ 1,853,220 7.2% $ 360,000 $ 1,925,400 $ 72,140 $ 1,853,260 FN1701 Purchase of ERP System $ 2,148,000 $ 2,148,000 $ 1,819,544 $ 328,456 84.7% $ 500,000 $ 1,244,800 $ - $ 1,244,800 TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND $ 11,129,000 $ 14,593,800 $ 3,136,523 $ 11,432,489 21.5% $ 6,195,900 $ 8,611,600 $ 748,572 $ 7,863,028 * PENDING APPROVAL Legend M = Multi-year project - a project with a specific schedule to occur over multiple years. R = Recurring project - a project that begins and ends each fiscal year and is re-budgeted to start over each fiscal year. C = Project funded by combination of CT Funds and General Fund B/L = To be financed through bonds or commercial loan. 411 8 of 8 1ST QTR FY21 CIP-PROJECT STATUS REPORT

FINAL READING 1 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2020-14 2 GOVERNMENTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 3 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2020-2021 4 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 5 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Eight Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Four Hundred 6 dollars ($8,750,400) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 7 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 8 beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021: 9 REVENUES 10 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 11 REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 12 BEGINNING BALANCE - PROJECTS $ 2,841,100 $ 369,100 $ 3,387,600 13 REVENUES 14 STATE GRANTS - Other 241,800 1,245,000 1,440,000 15 LIBRARY COUNTY GRANT 125,000 - - 16 BUDGET BOND/BANK PROCEEDS 528,600 1,198,300 1,498,300 17 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 3,261,600 2,078,100 2,078,100 18 TRANSFER FROM PARKLAND RESERVE 191,800 - - 19 TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL ASSET RESERVE 445,300 346,400 346,400 20 TRANSFER FROM LODGING TAX - 110,000 - 21 SUBTOTAL PROJECT RECEIPTS 4,794,100 4,977,800 5,362,800 22 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES 4,794,100 4,977,800 5,362,800 23 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE AND REVENUES $ 7,635,200 $ 5,346,900 $ 8,750,400 24 EXPENSE SUMMARY 25 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 26 EXPENDITURES REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 27 FIRE $ 281,100 $ 173,300 $ 173,300 28 GROUNDS 153,400 - - 29 LIBRARY 125,000 - 19,900 30 RECREATION 1,073,600 395,000 904,000 31 LIFE SAFETY 48,900 - 43,400 32 CODE ENFORCEMENT 37,200 - 37,800 33 PLANNING - 20,400 20,400 34 INSPECTIONS 18,600 18,600 42,700 35 POLICE 954,700 912,400 986,800 36 STREETS 3,289,400 936,000 3,224,100 37 STORMWATER 365,000 1,110,700 1,327,500 38 SANITATION 287,200 475,200 475,200 39 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 45,600 61,600 61,600 40 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 174,800 700,000 700,000 41 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING - 39,600 39,600 42 PROCUREMENT & INVENTORY 390,000 25,000 325,000 43 FLEET MAINTENANCE 21,600 - - 44 DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL 7,266,100 4,867,800 8,381,300 45 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7,266,100 4,867,800 8,381,300 46 BUDGET BALANCE 369,100 479,100 369,100 47 TOTAL BUDGET BALANCE & EXPENDITURES $ 7,635,200 $ 5,346,900 $ 8,750,400 48 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 49 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 50 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. ADOPTED: 1

FINAL READING 51 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2020-14 52 WATER IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION FUND 53 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2020-2021 54 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 55 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Six Million Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred 56 dollars ($6, 038,300) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from 57 current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Governmentr 58 for the fiscal year begining July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021: 59 CASH RECEIPTS 60 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 61 REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 62 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 5,349,000 $ 3,794,200 $ 4,618,200 63 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 5,349,000 3,794,200 4,618,200 64 REVENUES 65 STATE LOAN FUND - WATER 1,401,900 - - 66 TRANS FR OPERATING FUND - WATER 1,500,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 67 TRANSFER FR WATER IMPACT FEE 30,900 39,200 70,100 68 INTEREST INCOME 10,000 50,000 50,000 69 TOTAL REVENUES 2,942,800 1,389,200 1,420,100 70 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES & REVENUES $ 8,291,800 $ 5,183,400 $ 6,038,300 71 EXPENSE SUMMARY 72 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 73 EXPENSES REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 74 ENGINEERING $ - $ 20,400 $ 20,400 75 WATER 1,143,500 1,205,500 1,491,900 76 WATER TREATMENT PLANT 3,354,100 - 568,500 77 TOTAL EXPENSES 4,497,600 1,225,900 2,080,800 78 BUDGET BALANCE - WATER 3,794,200 3,957,500 3,957,500 79 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 3,794,200 3,957,500 3,957,500 80 TOTAL BUDGET BALANCES & EXPENSES $ 8,291,800 $ 5,183,400 $ 6,038,300 81 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 82 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 83 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. ADOPTED: 2

FINAL READING 84 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2020-14 85 WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION FUND 86 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2020-2021 87 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 88 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Three Million Sixty-three Thousand Nine 89 Hundred dollars ($3,063,900) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated 90 current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for 91 from the fiscal year begining July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021: 92 CASH RECEIPTS 93 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 94 REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 95 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER $ 906,600 $ 242,100 $ 1,243,700 96 REVENUES 97 STATE LOAN FUND - WASTEWATER 1,564,700 - 578,600 98 TRANS FR OPERATING FUND - WW 900,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 99 TRANSFER FR WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE 404,900 31,600 31,600 100 INTEREST INCOME 10,000 10,000 10,000 101 TOTAL REVENUES 2,879,600 1,241,600 1,820,200 102 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES & REVENUES $ 3,786,200 $ 1,483,700 $ 3,063,900 103 EXPENSE SUMMARY 104 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 105 EXPENSES REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 106 ENGINEERING $ - $ 14,000 $ 14,000 107 WASTEWATER 3,544,100 1,085,000 2,665,200 108 TOTAL EXPENSES 3,544,100 1,099,000 2,679,200 109 BUDGET BALANCE - WASTEWATER 242,100 384,700 384,700 110 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 242,100 384,700 384,700 111 TOTAL BUDGET BALANCES & EXPENSES $ 3,786,200 $ 1,483,700 $ 3,063,900 112 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 113 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 114 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. ADOPTED: 3

FINAL READING 115 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2020-14 116 WATER IMPACT FEE RESERVE 117 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2020-2021 118 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 119 The amount hereinafter named aggregating One Million Seven Hundred Seventy-eight Thousand 120 dollars ($1,778,000) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 121 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal 122 year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021: 123 CASH RECEIPTS 124 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 125 REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 126 BEGINNING BALANCE - WATER $ 1,751,500 $ 1,733,900 $ 1,764,800 127 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 1,751,500 1,733,900 1,764,800 128 RECEIPTS 129 TRANSFER IN FROM OPERATING FUND - - - 129 INTEREST EARNINGS - WATER 13,300 13,200 13,200 130 TOTAL RECEIPTS 13,300 13,200 13,200 131 TOTALS $ 1,764,800 $ 1,747,100 $ 1,778,000 132 EXPENSE SUMMARY 133 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 134 REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 135 TRANSFER TO CP IMPROVEMENTS 30,900 39,200 70,100 136 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 1,733,900 1,707,900 1,707,900 137 TOTALS $ 1,764,800 $ 1,747,100 $ 1,778,000 138 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 139 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 140 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. ADOPTED: 4

FINAL READING 141 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2020-14 142 WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RESERVE 143 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2020-2021 144 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 145 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Four Million Six Hundred Seven Thousand 146 dollars ($4,607,000) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current 147 revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal 148 year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021: 149 CASH RECEIPTS 150 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 151 REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 152 BEGINNING BALANCE - WASTEWATER $ 4,970,700 $ 4,603,600 $ 4,603,600 153 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCES 4,970,700 4,603,600 4,603,600 154 RECEIPTS 155 INTEREST EARNINGS - WASTEWATER 37,800 35,000 35,000 156 TOTAL RECEIPTS 37,800 35,000 35,000 157 TOTALS $ 5,008,500 $ 4,638,600 $ 4,638,600 158 EXPENSE SUMMARY 159 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 160 REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 161 TRANSFER TO I & E FUND FROM WW IMPACT FEES $ 404,900 $ 31,600 $ 31,600 161 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE SUBTOTALS 4,603,600 4,607,000 4,607,000 162 TOTALS $ 5,008,500 $ 4,638,600 $ 4,638,600 163 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 164 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 165 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. ADOPTED: 5

FINAL READING 166 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2020-14 167 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND 168 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2020-2021 169 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 170 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Ninety Million Seventy-One Thousand One Hundred 171 dollars ($90,071,100) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from 172 current revenues and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for 173 the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021: 174 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 175 REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 176 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 16,550,700 $ 10,230,300 $ 10,230,300 177 DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS - PCA CREDIT (2,873,800) (5,246,100) (5,246,100) 178 BEGINNING BALANCE - ADJUSTED 13,676,900 4,984,200 4,984,200 179 BASE REVENUE 180 DIRECT SALES TO CUSTOMER 82,686,400 80,417,400 80,417,400 181 UTILITY TAX 1,322,000 1,245,100 1,245,100 182 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 528,000 530,000 640,000 183 RENT REVENUE 110,000 110,000 - 184 GREEN ENERGY 127,400 127,000 127,000 185 INTEREST EARNINGS 195,000 157,400 157,400 186 TRANSFER FROM RATE STABILIZATION - 2,500,000 2,500,000 186 TOTAL REVENUES 84,968,800 85,086,900 85,086,900 187 TOTAL BEGINNING BALANCE & REVENUES $ 98,645,700 $ 90,071,100 $ 90,071,100 6

FINAL READING 188 2020-2021 BUDGET ORDINANCES 189 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND EXPENSES AND BUDGET BALANCE FOR 2020-2021 190 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 191 EXPENSES REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 192 POWER SUPPLY $ 22,115,400 $ 19,715,300 $ 19,715,300 193 SOLAR ENERGY 2,703,900 3,401,100 3,401,100 194 SOLAR RENEWAL ENERGY CREDITS 395,200 384,100 384,100 195 POWER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT 835,000 634,800 634,800 196 REC'S (Renewable Energy Credits) 411,000 614,600 614,600 197 RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Init.) 67,500 12,300 12,300 198 PJM CHARGES - ENERGY 5,678,600 5,871,900 5,871,900 199 PJM CHARGES - TRANSMISSION & FEES 7,792,400 8,476,800 8,476,800 200 CAPACITY CHARGES 11,101,900 15,048,100 15,048,100 201 SUB-TOTAL POWER SUPPLY 51,100,900 54,159,000 54,159,000 202 PLANT OPERATIONS 5,530,700 4,706,100 4,706,100 203 GENERATIONS FUELS 956,300 488,400 488,400 204 PJM SPOT MARKET ENERGY (1,163,100) (808,300) (808,300) 205 PJM CREDITS (516,900) (369,400) (369,400) 206 CAPACITY CREDITS (8,422,000) (12,191,700) (12,191,700) 207 GENERATION SUBTOTAL (3,615,000) (8,174,900) (8,174,900) 208 POWER SUPPLY & GENERATION SUBTOTAL 47,485,900 45,984,100 45,984,100 209 DIRECT EXPENDITURES 210 TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION 3,802,800 3,995,600 3,995,600 211 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 1,372,900 1,396,400 1,396,400 212 ADMINISTRATION 615,500 707,400 707,400 213 METER READING 401,900 375,300 375,300 214 SYSTEMS OPERATIONS 853,100 871,100 871,100 215 DIRECT EXPENDITURE SUBTOTALS 7,046,200 7,345,800 7,345,800 216 OTHER EXPENSES: 217 UTILITY TAX 1,322,000 1,245,100 1,245,100 218 ALLOW FOR UNCOLLECTIBLES 250,000 300,000 300,000 219 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - RFP'S 200,000 - - 220 LEGAL EXPENSES 100,000 100,000 100,000 221 RETIREES HEALTH CARE 721,400 789,600 789,600 222 GREEN ENERGY PAYMENT TO DEMEC 137,000 127,000 127,000 223 INTERFUND SERVICE FEES 3,912,900 3,784,300 3,784,300 224 INTEREST ON DEPOSITS 17,500 21,000 21,000 225 BANK & CREDIT CARD FEES 327,000 330,300 330,300 226 DEBT SERVICE 1,379,500 1,378,600 1,378,600 227 OTHER EXPENSES SUBTOTAL 8,367,300 8,075,900 8,075,900 228 TRANSFER TO: 229 IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION 6,816,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 230 GENERAL FUND 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 231 TRANSFER TO DEPRECIATION RESERVE 5,000,000 - - 232 RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE 3,700,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 233 TRANSFER TO SUBTOTAL 25,516,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 234 TOTAL EXPENSES 88,415,400 79,405,800 79,405,800 235 BUDGET BALANCE - WORKING CAPITAL 10,230,300 10,665,300 10,665,300 236 TOTALS $ 98,645,700 $ 90,071,100 $ 90,071,100 237 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 238 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 239 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. ADOPTED: 7

FINAL READING 240 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2020-14 241 ELECTRIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION FUND 242 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2020-2021 243 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 244 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Twenty Five Million Six Hundred Forty-six Thousand Five Hundred 245 dollars ($25,646,500) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 246 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 247 beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021: 248 REVENUES 249 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 250 REVISED REVISED REVISED 251 BEGINNING BALANCE $ 15,157,800 $ 15,640,000 $ 18,028,300 252 REVENUES 253 TRANSFER FROM ELECTRIC 6,816,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 254 TRANSFER FROM WATER/WASTEWATER 298,000 - - 255 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 250,000 - - 256 GENERAL SERVICE BILLING 400,000 400,000 400,000 257 TRF FROM DEPRECIATION RSV - 1,000,000 1,000,000 258 INTEREST EARNINGS 150,000 218,200 218,200 259 TOTAL REVENUES 7,914,000 7,618,200 7,618,200 260 TOTALS $ 23,071,800 $ 23,258,200 $ 25,646,500 261 EXPENSE SUMMARY 262 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 263 EXPENSES REVISED REVISED REVISED 264 ELECTRIC ADMINISTRATION $ 1,643,200 $ 360,000 $ 1,925,400 265 ELECTRIC GENERATION 376,000 1,267,000 1,302,700 266 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION 1,255,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 267 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 3,293,000 2,968,900 3,011,300 268 METER READING 21,800 - - 269 ERP SYSTEM 842,800 500,000 1,244,800 270 TOTAL EXPENSES 7,431,800 6,195,900 8,584,200 271 BUDGET BALANCE 15,640,000 17,062,300 17,062,300 272 TOTAL BUDGET BALANCE & EXPENSES $ 23,071,800 $ 23,258,200 $ 25,646,500 273 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 274 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 275 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. ADOPTED: 8

FINAL READING 276 CITY OF DOVER ORDINANCE # 2020-14 277 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND 278 REVENUES AND BUDGET FOR 2020-2021 279 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET: 280 The amount hereinafter named aggregating Seven Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Eight Hundred 281 dollars ($795,800) or so much thereof as may be necessary are hereby appropriated from current revenues 282 and other funds for the use by several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year 283 beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021: 284 OPERATING REVENUES 285 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 286 REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 287 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 334,000 $ 662,400 $ 312,400 288 GRANTS REVENUE 416,600 400,000 483,400 289 TOTALS $ 750,600 $ 1,062,400 $ 795,800 290 OPERATING EXPENSES 291 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 292 REVISED ADOPTED REVISED 293 PROGRAM EXP. GRANT RELATED $ 750,600 $ 750,000 $ 795,800 294 295 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE - 312,400 - 296 TOTALS $ 750,600 $ 1,062,400 $ 795,800 297 The City Manager is hereby authorized, without further approval of the City Council, to make 298 interdepartmental transfers of up to five percent of the amount hereinafter appropriated to any 299 department with the exception of any transfers prohibited by City Procedure #F306. ADOPTED: 9